skydyvr 0 #26 March 19, 2003 QuoteOr it could be that liberal talk show hosts are simply not as entertaining as Rush. Or it could be that white, married, 40 year old males just dig AM radio. But I'll still cite the rise of FOX and the decline of CNN to help orient my data points. The stereotypical differences between liberals and democrats seem pretty real to me. It's like the fact that people in the entertainment arts are mostly politically liberal. It's hard wired into their brains, their views just one aspect of their overall being. Like conservative news junkies, they just can't help it. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
racer42 0 #27 March 19, 2003 I hope your not seriously comparing the political complexities of American politics to well produced radio products. Your right about the business model though. If something is marketed well enough any one not paying attention will buy. Even Conservatives.L.A.S.T. #24 Co-Founder Biscuit Brothers Freefly Team Electric Toaster #3 Co-Founder Team Non Sequitor Co-Founder Team Happy Sock Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #28 March 19, 2003 QuoteI hope your not seriously comparing the political complexities of American politics to well produced radio products. Your right about the business model though. If something is marketed well enough any one not paying attention will buy. Even Conservatives. You are right. It is possible to market conservative ideology "well enough" because the ideas that drive it are logical, concise and reason based, and therefore flow well from one station break to the next. OTOH, liberal ideology is a lot more fuzzy, feely and based in emotion, and therefore it is harder to connect the dots verbally. It must be difficult to make a coherent 3 hour talk show out of that. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #29 March 19, 2003 >The stereotypical differences between liberals and democrats seem > pretty real to me. I thought democrats were liberals . . . In any case, I think that people find what they expect to find. People who dislike a certain race will see only the crimes committed by that race. People who think all conservatives as rude and obnoxious see Rush Limbaugh and not Colin Powell. Even the definitions of conservative/liberal and democrat/republican change with time. Democrats used to be the party of war and big government; now the republicans have taken over those extremes. Heck, a long time ago the democrats were the party of slavery, and republicans were the party of tolerance. It's hard to make any hard and fast assumptions about either political leaning if their very definitions keep changing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #30 March 19, 2003 "BTW - What color is the boathouse in Hereford?" There isn't a boathouse in Hereford...... -------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #31 March 19, 2003 Quote. This why conservative talk radio flourishes, while liberal talk radio doesn't exist in the national market without government subsidy. This is why Fox News is thriving while CNN suffers a long, slow ratings death. well if you believe that, it kind of makes you wonder about the right-wingers whining about liberal-bias in the media. by your argument, we actually have more right-wing bias in the media. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #32 March 19, 2003 QuoteYou are right. It is possible to market conservative ideology "well enough" because the ideas that drive it are logical, concise and reason based, and therefore flow well from one station break to the next. OTOH, liberal ideology is a lot more fuzzy, feely and based in emotion, and therefore it is harder to connect the dots verbally. It must be difficult to make a coherent 3 hour talk show out of that. um, actually, you need to look up the definitions of "conservative" and " liberal" in the dictionary. You might be surprised. Things have gotten really convoluted in the American political spectrum. A conservative would normally like to preserve the status quo & not rock the boat & shake things up, thus a true "conservative" opinion would be to NOT go to war & would instead want to try to take things slower & preserve things as they are. This weirdness in US politics has been pointed out by some of our friends across the pond. And actually, it has been right-wingers (who by and large, are NOT being conservative) that are being "feely and based in emotion" when they bring up vaguely-defined justifications for military action against a country that was NOT involved in the 9/11 attacks, AND are trying to justify a pre-emptive strike (clearly NOT a conservative or even a Republican value, read your history books, kiddies), AND are accusing anyone who disagrees with them as being anti-American extremists or commies. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 620 #33 March 19, 2003 I know that it is immaterial now - but in the UK the prime minister has full authority to declare war - without consulting parliament. The prime minister is given this authority by Royal Decree, I am told this is to enable "rapid" responce type situations to be handled. It was Blairs choice to consult parliament, apparantly it is one of the first time the debate has happened prior to action starting. However this has cost Blair dearly as it was the largest parliamentary rebellion in modern politics (whatever period that spans?). There is an element of propaganda in terms of his support for war as opinion polls suggest a swinging of opinion - however a british friend told me that Brits will always pull together during a war 100% no arguing and then afterwards they will scalp Tony. So the opinion polls showing support for war in the UK - reflects support for the troops not the principle. This is backed up by observations here at work.Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #34 March 19, 2003 QuoteQuote. This why conservative talk radio flourishes, while liberal talk radio doesn't exist in the national market without government subsidy. This is why Fox News is thriving while CNN suffers a long, slow ratings death. well if you believe that, it kind of makes you wonder about the right-wingers whining about liberal-bias in the media. by your argument, we actually have more right-wing bias in the media. As Josef Goebbels told us, keep repeating the big lie and eventually people will believe it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #35 March 19, 2003 QuoteAll I was doing was correcting a false comment, and if you thought that I was rubbing it in, that is your opinion and you are welcome to it. Michele you were right, I was wrong. Michele you were right, I was wrong. Michele you were right, I was wrong. Michele you were right, I was wrong. Michele you were right, I was wrong. Michele you were right, I was wrong. That enough? Actually, not quite true. The statement I made was that Bush contends that he was giving authority after 9/11 to go to war with Iraq. The fact that congress voted specifically on that issue to show their support of the pres doesn't change the fact that he had the attitude that he had the authority without additional action by congress. I never said he wasn't given authority by congress. I said he contends he had it without additional action on their part. That remains true. QuoteA senior U.S. official involved in presidential deliberations and at the meeting said Bush "had the authority to act. What he is seeking is a resolution of support." QuoteWhite House legal advisors have considered that the US President George Bush does not need to get the approval of the Congress in order to launch a military attack against Iraq. Officials at the White House said on Monday that Bush's Aides related their conclusion on this issue on three basic elements. The first, as they said is that the American constitution, according to which the US President assumes the post of the highest commander of the armed forces; and a decision adopted by the US congress in 1991 gives President Bush the right to use the force in the Gulf war, and third is the decision issued on September 14, 2001. The spokesman for the White House explained that any decision that might be taken by Bush will be based on more than one of the said elements. QuoteWhat the White House Says: On Aug. 26, White House lawyers issued an opinion that President Bush could order a preemptive attack against Iraq without a vote of approval from Congress. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Genie 0 #36 March 19, 2003 Quote Quote I know that it is immaterial now - but in the UK the prime minister has full authority to declare war - without consulting parliament. Oh well there you go Quote It was Blairs choice to consult parliament, apparantly it is one of the first time the debate has happened prior to action starting. However this has cost Blair dearly as it was the largest parliamentary rebellion in modern politics (whatever period that spans?). I heard on one news broadcast that he could keep the troops there on the borders by the Royal decree thing, but i did think he had to get the go ahead. Bearing in mind that he has that power I wonder what would have happened if his motion had been defeated... i guess he could have sent them in and then declared emergency powers to prevent a vote of n confidence - hypothesis only ! Quote There is an element of propaganda in terms of his support for war as opinion polls suggest a swinging of opinion Yeah i spotted that too but i think its like you said below - now that its inevitable they will all pull together and support their troops. Its a matter of pride in the British psyche and deservedly so. - however a british friend told me that Brits will always pull together during a war 100% no arguing and then afterwards they will scalp Tony. So the opinion polls showing support for war in the UK - reflects support for the troops not the principle. This is backed up by observations here at work. Genie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #37 March 19, 2003 Quote>The stereotypical differences between liberals and democrats seem > pretty real to me. I thought democrats were liberals . . . Duh . . . I meant to type liberals and conservatives. QuoteIn any case, I think that people find what they expect to find. Yes. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
