But I wouldn't live anywhere else.

I'm really hoping for sometime in the next few elections - we get the most ethnic, foriegn sounding names to run. I would just love to see people like a post a few back, who loves the name Hussein for the wrong reasons, squirm in all their hatred and bitterness.

It is not hatred and bitterness,
I do it because the DNC used to always call VP Quayle J. Danforth to make him appear Differently than he actually is.
J. Danforth Quayle is his name. B. Hussein Obama is his name.
R. Milhouse Nixon. kennedy is an ethic name.
McCain is an ethnic name.
Is there a reason to be ashamed of your middle name?

No, but no one is going around and using "Sidney" as a negative campaign tool, either. The Reps are all over using "Hussien" as a name to equate Obama with terrorism, and/or at least Islam.

It's all in the context, Native, all in the context.

Native Okie,
The left think that since they have absolute hatred and bitterness, for something or somebody they don't like understand, that everybody in opposition must believe the same way.

On this thread alone one can't help but notice how upset they get when those who aren't on the left make rational statements? They will almost always attack the person with name calling, belittling or hatred. Rarely will you see otherwise.

Don't ask me why. It's just the way they're wired or programmed.






I'm a moderate. I always look at both sides and then make a reasonable decision.

<<I'm really hoping for sometime in the next few elections - we get the most ethnic, foriegn sounding names to run. I would just love to see people like a post a few back, who loves the name Hussein for the wrong reasons, squirm in all their hatred and bitterness.>>

Why would you want that? Can't we all just try to get along?

Only an hour or so in, and FOX definitely has the worst coverage of the DNC, but then again, O'Reilly is all-about O'Reilly.

CSPAN for the true no-spin zone.

O'Reilly is a commentator who gives his opinion, he's not a journalist. You need to learn the difference.

What part of the word "COVERAGE" didn't you understand? CSPAN is the only network showing the entire convention, and not interjecting with opinion when they deem a speaker un-interesting.

If Fox does the same during the RNC, letting O'Reilly blow steam instead of showing the actual convention, THEN we can say Fox is consistently being bad.

MSNBC is in 2nd place for worst coverage. Hell, their main desk is out in the parking lot!

CNN in a close 3rd.

Even PBS is interjecting.

The news networks aren't obligated to give full coverage to the convention. They will most likely will cover the most popular speakers or the most controversial speakers. That's what news networks do. It's all about ratings. If you don't like their coverage then watch CSPAN.

I love Shep. O'Reilly irritates me (and of course he is a commentator not a journalist!). Hannity makes me nuts - I just can't stand him. Megan Kelly is pretty - I think she is a rare talent but sometimes... That pretty dark haired girl is just mean. Colmes is nice.

All that being said, I am an Independent conservative. I view Fox News as entertainment because, overall, they have a terrific sense of humor (but they are getting way too tabloid). The liberals who go ballistic over Fox and insist it is all things evil and that only sheep watch it need to get over themselves. It is not the Fox watchers who are freaking out everytime someone says something with which they disagree. Oh sure, we'll argue the point, but few of us start making personal attacks about the level of intelligence or free will of the person who disagrees with us.

What many liberals don't seem to understand is that there are several major paths to conservatism. Some people are morally or culturally conservative as a result of their religion, values or their upbringing. They adopt the conservative platform because it more closely mirrors their values and world view.

Other conservatives hold their beliefs based on a hard eyed assessment of how the world works and life has taught them a lot about unintended consequences. Many of those people, and I count myself as one of them, began as liberal when we were younger and reassessed those views when we discovered that they didn't stand up to what actually happens in the real world.

I've noticed that a lot of liberals automatically want to lump conservatives into the first group and, further, inject a bit of an arrogant, judgmental attitude by assuming that people are conservative only because they are mentally lazy or otherwise simply following along with what they are taught. Toss in a bit of anti-Christian sentiment and whenever they run across someone who is conservative, they automatically think they know what the conservative thinks and what their values are. They frequently categorize conservatives (and dismiss them) as mindless drones. The fact that the second conservative group tends to have reached their beliefs through a great deal of soul searching and willingness to discard notions that they used to hold dear (which is painful and takes puts a premium on intellectual clarity) results in quite a disconnect between how liberals view them and the reality. Obviously, it makes it hard to have an intelligent discussion when liberals "assume" you just haven't thought this stuff through.

You should tell that to the two sheep in my office. They can quote chapter and verse about anything that O'Reilly, or Hannity says, or worse Rush. So yes, there are very definitely "Sheep" who believe everything that these "sensationalists" have to say.

I'm not a liberal. I just don't like when people have to lie to prove their point (then claim they are expressing an opinion), which Fox is the worst about. Yes, CNN, MSNBC, and the rest aren't not totally on the up and up all the time, but Fox is definitely blatant.

Fox definitely is biased but at least they let you know it. What I can't stand are the stations that are blatantly biased but mislead the public.

NPR is by far the worst. They're like the sheep from Animal Farm, "blue state good, Red state bad." The disturbing fact is that NPR gets tax dollars to produce their slick political diatribe.

CBS, CNN, MSNBC are disgustingly biased. The Today Show? Matt Lauer? How about Katie Couric on See BS (I digress, forgive me).

C-SPAN is great as long as you don't listen to the call in sessions, i.e. one line for conservatives, one for liberals and another for liberals who want you to think they're moderate.

The bottom line is that I can deal with Fox News because they have both sides without a "fairness doctrine". No other station can say that. Van Sustern is a Liberal, as is Colmes, who's a really nice guy. Does anybody think Geraldo is a conservative? Patti Ann Brown is gorgeous!

Shep is hilarious. Does anybody remember him hanging onto a sign during Katrina?

The majority of the time when I listen to conservative commentators, they are simply stating what a majority of us (conservatives) are already thinking. I think it is a common misconception that the only reason anyone listens is to be told what position to take on any given issue. The message is usually only reinforcing a position already held in ones mind, but it takes talent to put it into words and make it entertaining to listen to. Any thoughts on why a liberal radio host can't be successful?

Very well put!

__________________
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind
Albert Einstein

I always look forward to reading ECO. Just like listening to talk radio, some have a talent for putting the things I am already thinking into print!! Then again, I also look forward to reading Solitude or some of the others on here with a differing viewpoint.

I believe there are two main reasons why leftist radio will never be successful.

1. Nobody wants to hear doom and gloom for 3 or 4 hours a day. Not even a liberal. Air America was a typical example. Al Franken is hilarious and can be very entertaining but he's invidious to the point that his point gets missed.

'The View' appears to be doing good, especially after they got rid of Rosey. Whoopi is better but not by much. There's a disturbing aura of vindictiveness or retaliation over everybody who is a regular or is appearing as a guest. Barbara Walters doesn't appear to be as choleric or spiteful as the others but she definitely won't speak up when somebody is conspicuously wrong. Does anybody remember the event a couple of months ago?

2. Liberals will not support the sponsors. For some unreasonable reason somebody else is supposed to pay the bill. The free enterprise system is a bane to the left. NPR is a prime example. If it weren't for the government NPR would die in a heart beat. Liberals will send money to specific candidates or causes but that's it.





I'm a moderate. I always look at both sides then make a reasonable decision.

Generalizations are fun. It's funny, because I'm a liberal for the very same reason you claim to be a conservative - real world experience. In the real world, most people aren't poor because they're "lazy" and are just living off the government dime, as conservatives like to generalize. Instead, I know that most middle class bankruptcies are due to the unexpected expense of major medical events. Families didn't choose the cancer that struck down their young daughter, bankrupting them so they could afford the outrageously expensive medicine not covered by insurance.

I know in the real world that a lot of people risk everything they have and put enormous effort to start their own businesses that fail, and it must be pretty bad for them to tune in to TV and radio and hear conservative leaders say they're just lazy free-loaders (and instead the trust-fun kids who inherited their money by doing nothing deserve yet another massive tax cut and big corporations deserve yet more corporate welfare).

I know in the real world a lot of people with substance abuse problems aren't Satanic losers who chose their failed path as conservatives like to say, but many have had an extremely traumatic event in their life I could barely understand if I tried (in many cases, as a result of government-forced service in Vietnam). Rather than our scorn they need our help.

I know that in the real world, someone can make the personal choice to occasionally enjoy some marijuana, which in the real world is far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco, and otherwise have a highly productive and normal life. I know in the real world it's a massive waste of resources and police time to go after and jail such people.

I know in the real world most people who abuse their more vulnerable family are caught in a cycle of violence and were likely once victims themselves. Instead of simply throwing them in jail overnight and forgetting about it we should be finding ways to break the cycle of violence permanently.

I know that in the real world, a rich person can get a team of lawyers and get away with murder (literally or figuratively), while innocent men sit in jail for life (or on death row) because they had a court-assigned sub-standard public defender.

I know from experience in the real world, there's no reason a given atheist or agnostic can't lead a life that's just as moral (or moreso) than a given fundamentalist Christian, despite what conservatives are so quick to generalize.

I know in the real world a young woman can make a mistake and face a terrible choice to abort the baby or go through with the pregnancy and bring a child into the world she cannot care for. I know in the real world that those that take the conservative's advise to "choose life" are often left with little help actually caring for the baby as a poor, young single mother. I know that as a gay man if I try adopting said baby I'm immediately condemned by conservatives who think I'm somehow trying to harm the kid by caring for it.

I know in the real world dozens of gay couples who have been in committed relationships for tens of years, despite the continued claims by conservatives that it's not possible. They are denied legal rights that another man can get without a second thought when he is marrying for the twelfth time. Out here in the real world, I know of a gay couple that has been together for years, but one is here on a student visa that will soon expire expelling him from the country. They cannot get married so the foreign guy can't stay, so my friend will be forced to decide between his country and his partner. On the other hand, my friend could get online and get a mail-order bride he's never met and she'd be granted citizenship with little issue.

I could go on, but I think everyone gets the point.

But the point I was making was not that conservatives "think" about why they believe what they believe and liberals don't. The point I was making was that it is a mistake to assume conservatives don't put thought into it. That liberals and conservatives disagree on conclusions is a completely different scenario than assuming they are not thinking at all.

I get it East Coast Okie.
What is painful to hear is the constant emotional pleas that the liberals make.
note previous post.
Last night the speech was being made about the father that kisses the kids after working the first shift only to go to the second shift.
It is always the down and outer or the we are not making it.
How about the man or woman that is very successful making good money for their family and still works those long hours to provide.
I resent the lefts inability to understand that the financially successful American man or woman hurts just as much as the struggling American kissing their child good night.

Actually, NPR itself gets relatively little government support: the CPB writes them a check every year for about one percent of their budget. Local affiliates are more dependent on government sources - it's difficult to imagine KGOU surviving if OU cut out its support.

According to WBFO, an NPR station, they get about 36% of it's money from the CPB and the state of New York. From that WBFO pays a substantial amount to NPR for "All Liberal Things Considered" and "Liberal Edition". With all the other NPR radio stations doing the same thing they end up receiving considerably more than 1%. NPR isn't cheap.

Where the money comes from

Government Funding


Where did you get your figures?

Prunepicker, I hate to disagree but I think your post is loaded with lots of opinion on NPR but not a lot of fact.

KGOU/KROU, which is the local NPR affiliate, is largely supported by donations from private corporations and individuals in the metropolitan area. Here's a quite long list of their corporate sponsors:

KGOU - Your NPR Source - Current Underwriters


This graphic shows where KGOU's money is coming from. Only 10% comes from federal funding. The rest is all private donations from individuals and corporations:

KGOU - Your NPR Source - Membership Information


...that is not an uncommon break-down of funding... Congress has been slashing the budget for public broadcasting for the better part of a decade now.

As far as whether they are liberal or conservative... if you look at who is supporting them they do have a mix of both types of organizations paying for their programming. I think you would be hard pressed to convince me that one of their primary underwriters, The Zig Ziggler School of Ethics at Southern Nazarene University, is liberal.

As for their news content, not commentaries, I would be surprised if you could point out something specific that was blatantly biased. Most of their news is quite honestly rather boring. Unlike the video media they don't offer opinions every 10 seconds in-between the news stories. Are their opinion shows biased? Sure, just like everyone else's are too.

Heh heh heh...

ABC News: FDIC Warns of More Bank Troubles

You're right. Most of us need to walk a mile in real Americans' shoes. For example, I'll confess right now I have no idea what parts and service for a Cadillac Escalade cost. I assume inflation has affected Prada's and Dolce & Gabbana's costs, and god knows what that's done to the quality.

And poor John McCain! He has to hire staff to keep track of how many houses he owns! If this keeps up, he'll have to divorce Cindy and marry Madonna!

I don't know how the downtrodden wealthy even keep it all together day to day.