Olbermann claims his ratings higher than Limbaugh... What a joke

Lefties Misrepresent Talk Radio, TV Ratings

THE NUMBERS GAME
Olbermann & Friends Twist Limbaugh's Ratings Data
10 March 2009


Can deranged MSNBC host Keith Olbermann really claim to have more viewers than talk titan Rush Limbaugh has radio listeners?

Using twisted "logic" possibly derived from Million Man Math Made Easy, Olby decided on Friday's show to take a low-ball audience figure of 14,000,000 (as opposed to the widely accepted 20,000,000 count), inexplicably divide it by ten, then declare the "results" lower than his 1,486,000 viewers during Thursday's show.

(transcripts of Olbermann's show follow)

< SNIP >

Beyond delusional fantasy, what made Olbermann decide to divide Limbaugh's ratings by ten? Who knows, it wasn't exactly explained and certainly doesn't make sense. It was probably made up out of thin air. Who interviews a television editor about radio ratings, anyway?

Using this formula, what would liberal talk radio's final audience figure look like?

Let's assume he was trying to determine an average overall audience size. If so, Premiere Radio Networks, Limbaugh's syndicator, has told the Washington Post the most recent data, nearly a year old, gives a figure of 3,590,000, not 1,400,000 as Olbermann's fuzzy math suggests.

Another lie: that any radio host could get diary credit for one mere second of listening. According to Arbitron, it takes five minutes of continuous listening for a station to gain quarter-hour ratings credit.

If Olby is interested, more factual information is available here from Arbitron's site.


But Olbermann is hardly the only one twisting and contorting ratings to fit his personal political agenda. It's done routinely in broadcasting, whether to question a successful host's ratings, as was done in the WaPo Limbaugh piece, or hype the underperformance of a low-rated MSNBC host.

On Monday's show, Limbaugh himself made clear he's not behind reports of "doubled ratings" for his program. In fact, the source is surprising: the publisher of a trade publication sometimes considered hostile to conservative talk radio. From his program:

(transcripts of Limbaugh's show follow)

< SNIP >

In the end, while Limbaugh gives honest answers regarding his listenership, his foes have come up with increasingly-creative ways of undermining him. If only they could invest that kind of energy into building their own ratings!

Full Story

How pathetic... Olbermann is a disgrace to political journalism, as is the network that employs him.

Don't take this the wrong way, just curious.

What's with all of the anti-leftie speil all the time?

He's the most partisan hack you will ever meet. That's what...

Well...Grim certainly is biased in his opinion. But it's his opinion.

And from my experience, when Grim thinks a right winger is wrong, he'll openly say that too.

So while he is biased, he is also pretty fair. He holds the righties accountable too.

Sir Bonvolio wrote:Don't take this the wrong way, just curious.

What's with all of the anti-leftie speil all the time?

I have a very fundamental disagreement with the policies put forth by those who embrace the liberal ideology. I disagree with their vision for America, and the direction they've been steering the country in for the last 40+ years.

The truth be told, I believe most liberals/democrats have the best intentions in the world. They strive for peace on earth, a clean environment and want to end all human suffering. I also believe they care about America, and want the country to continue to thrive. Now I'm going to explain the flaws with the liberal ideology as I see them, and I truly mean no offense to anyone.

I believe that liberals embrace policies and solutions superficially, without looking at the long term negative effects such policies and solutions will have on society years down the line. They believe that there is such a thing as a "perfect world" and often refuse to look beyond what's on paper. Conservatives tend to focus on the overall picture of America... What's good about about the country... Taking into account that America is not only "not perfect", but also that it can never be perfect. Liberals on the other hand, look at what's wrong with America and believe those things must be fixed, period... And until they are, America will never be a great country in their eyes. Here are some examples:

Socialism
On paper, socialism creates a balanced society where nobody is poor, and nobody is rich. Everyone has a home, nobody is hungry, everyone is equally educated, and the sick are taken care of. The way this is achieved is by the government taking control or imposing strict regulations on big business, creating massive government controlled programs (such as education and health care) and redistributing wealth by way of taxation.

Liberals embrace a more socialized system of government in America. In their view, it's the solution that will help lower middle class families and the poor, and put a stop to corporate greed. What they fail to see, is the overall effects it will have on the country as a whole. They don't take into account how everyone else will react to those policies, and how those reactions will negatively impact everyone, including those they were trying to help in the first place. In other words, they see social programs as the fix for a small group of peoples problems today, without taking into account how it will effect the majority of Americans and the country as a whole tomorrow.

War
Most liberals oppose war of any kind. They believe there is always a peaceful solution. They look at war in the "now". They see innocent people die when a war is raged, so they do and say whatever is necessary to stop that killing. What they don't take into account, is the long term effects of inaction. In the case of Iraq, the choice to invade was based on an effort to secure long term peace, and prevent future killing and human suffering. They completely ignore the fact that Saddam was responsible for the deaths of over a half million of his own people during his time in power, not to mention those he tortured and jailed because they dared to oppose him. They also ignore Saddam's history of waging brutal wars with his neighbors, which includes the people he killed, raped and tortured when he invaded the peaceful country of Kuwait in 1991. Like I said, liberals tend to see things in the "now" when it comes to war, and often completely ignore history, as well as refuse to contemplate the effects that inaction will have on the future.

*

Barack Obama and the democrats policies are a good example of my belief about liberals. The stimulus plan they just created and implemented, is designed for the "now". It was to fix today's economic problems, and didn't take into account the long term effects it will have on the economy 8 or 10 years down the line. Even his own Congressional Budget Office stated in a recently published report, that although the stimulus package may have some positive short term effects on the nations economy, it will definitely have a negative impact on the economy in the years to come.

I have many more examples I can post if you'd like, but I think I made my point.

Liberals want to help the less fortunate, minorities, the have nots, which is a great thing... They just don't take into account how their solutions designed to help a minority of people, can negatively effect the majority. They want to take action to stop inequality and human suffering now, but refuse to take into account the future ramifications of those actions.

Socialism
On paper, socialism creates a balanced society where nobody is poor, and nobody is rich. Everyone has a home, nobody is hungry, everyone is equally educated, and the sick are taken care of. The way this is achieved is by the government taking control or imposing strict regulations on big business, creating massive government controlled programs (such as education and health care) and redistributing wealth by way of taxation.

This describes that which does not exist. Shangra lai.

It never has and it never will.

Old Timer wrote:Socialism
On paper, socialism creates a balanced society where nobody is poor, and nobody is rich. Everyone has a home, nobody is hungry, everyone is equally educated, and the sick are taken care of. The way this is achieved is by the government taking control or imposing strict regulations on big business, creating massive government controlled programs (such as education and health care) and redistributing wealth by way of taxation.

This describes that which does not exist. Shangra lai.

It never has and it never will.

I know that OT... Yet millions of people around the world, including the majority of liberals in America, still believe socialism and big government can achieve this. Taking from the over achievers in a society, to give to the under achievers in a society, will eventually destroy that society. The over achievers lose their motivation and become less productive, and the under achievers have no reason to change their ways. You end up with an under-productive workforce and a society of lazy people, that depend on the government for their survival.

Independent Harry wrote:He's the most partisan hack you will ever meet. That's what...

(M)

A reminder...

Personal attacks:Keep personal attacks, a.k.a. name-calling, to a minimum. It is fine to debate someone's opinion, but keep it civil. Deliberately baiting members is not allowed, ex: starting a thread for the purpose of attacking a member. Keep your snide comments to yourself. Try to follow momma's rule, "If you dont have anything nice to say, just dont say it". Please endeavor to keep your posts respectful. Let's be adults, please.

Grim17 wrote:

Sir Bonvolio wrote:Don't take this the wrong way, just curious.

What's with all of the anti-leftie speil all the time?

I have a very fundamental disagreement with the policies put forth by those who embrace the liberal ideology. I disagree with their vision for America, and the direction they've been steering the country in for the last 40+ years.

The truth be told, I believe most liberals/democrats have the best intentions in the world. They strive for peace on earth, a clean environment and want to end all human suffering. I also believe they care about America, and want the country to continue to thrive. Now I'm going to explain the flaws with the liberal ideology as I see them, and I truly mean no offense to anyone.

I believe that liberals embrace policies and solutions superficially, without looking at the long term negative effects such policies and solutions will have on society years down the line. They believe that there is such a thing as a "perfect world" and often refuse to look beyond what's on paper. Conservatives tend to focus on the overall picture of America... What's good about about the country... Taking into account that America is not only "not perfect", but also that it can never be perfect. Liberals on the other hand, look at what's wrong with America and believe those things must be fixed, period... And until they are, America will never be a great country in their eyes. Here are some examples:

Socialism
On paper, socialism creates a balanced society where nobody is poor, and nobody is rich. Everyone has a home, nobody is hungry, everyone is equally educated, and the sick are taken care of. The way this is achieved is by the government taking control or imposing strict regulations on big business, creating massive government controlled programs (such as education and health care) and redistributing wealth by way of taxation.

Liberals embrace a more socialized system of government in America. In their view, it's the solution that will help lower middle class families and the poor, and put a stop to corporate greed. What they fail to see, is the overall effects it will have on the country as a whole. They don't take into account how everyone else will react to those policies, and how those reactions will negatively impact everyone, including those they were trying to help in the first place. In other words, they see social programs as the fix for a small group of peoples problems today, without taking into account how it will effect the majority of Americans and the country as a whole tomorrow.

War
Most liberals oppose war of any kind. They believe there is always a peaceful solution. They look at war in the "now". They see innocent people die when a war is raged, so they do and say whatever is necessary to stop that killing. What they don't take into account, is the long term effects of inaction. In the case of Iraq, the choice to invade was based on an effort to secure long term peace, and prevent future killing and human suffering. They completely ignore the fact that Saddam was responsible for the deaths of over a half million of his own people during his time in power, not to mention those he tortured and jailed because they dared to oppose him. They also ignore Saddam's history of waging brutal wars with his neighbors, which includes the people he killed, raped and tortured when he invaded the peaceful country of Kuwait in 1991. Like I said, liberals tend to see things in the "now" when it comes to war, and often completely ignore history, as well as refuse to contemplate the effects that inaction will have on the future.

*

Barack Obama and the democrats policies are a good example of my belief about liberals. The stimulus plan they just created and implemented, is designed for the "now". It was to fix today's economic problems, and didn't take into account the long term effects it will have on the economy 8 or 10 years down the line. Even his own Congressional Budget Office stated in a recently published report, that although the stimulus package may have some positive short term effects on the nations economy, it will definitely have a negative impact on the economy in the years to come.

I have many more examples I can post if you'd like, but I think I made my point.

Liberals want to help the less fortunate, minorities, the have nots, which is a great thing... They just don't take into account how their solutions designed to help a minority of people, can negatively effect the majority. They want to take action to stop inequality and human suffering now, but refuse to take into account the future ramifications of those actions.

I have a somewhat similar view of what I consider a liberal.

Here are some of my random thoughts and beliefs. Most of this pertains to fiscal policy and certain government programs like welfare.

The key for me is the following. Success is a learned trait born from failure. I've learned this the hard way on several occassions. But some people never try. And because they never try, they fail. It is that simple. Education is the solution that we Americans seem to fear. I believe it was Bush that said we need education programs because the low level mfg jobs are leaving the country...so people need to learn new skills to get new jobs. And as I recall the liberals bashed him saying we need to keep those jobs here.

So when I look at the difference between the far right and the far left here is what I see.

On the far right we have a group of people that realize people will fail no matter what we do. And they tend to believe it is that individuals responsibility to take care of themselves. There are extenuating circumstances, but 99% of people are exactly where they are in life because that is where they choose to be. You are nothing more than the product of your own decisions...for better or worse. So while the far right feel a little empathy for someones problems, they don't tend to be too sympathetic, nor do they give handouts. Because those on the far right tend to believe that people learn more from their mistakes than they do from their successes. So by giving someone a free pass from their mistakes, they are actually hurting that person. Kinda like helping a new butterfly out of its cocoon.
The people on the far right also believe that some people will fall through the cracks no matter how good a system is. Some people will be corrupt no matter how diligent we are. And so the proposals from the people on the right tend to include punishments to account for this. the people on the right attempt to take basic human nature into account. As Dr. House always says...everyone lies to protect their own best interests.

On the far left we have people who also realize people will fail...however they tend to believe these people must be helped, that their suffering must stop. So they create programs to help these people...like welfare. While they realize people will take advantage of these programs, they believe the good they are doing outweighs the potential damage. So while a small percentage of people are able to use welfare to pull themselves back up, they also have people going to 4 states every week to get 4 seperate welfare checks from each...with no intention of ever working again...all because they know how to work the system. IMO what the people on the left fail to realize is that they are fighting human nature. The vast majority of people would be happy to take a handout rather than work for their money. I know I would. That's why we have the lottery. :-)

Affirmative action is a great example. Both sides of the aisle know what this country did to blacks in our history. But there are two proposed solutions. First, give minorities priority over whites. Or, let them build themselves up because the strongest steel is made in the hottest fire. I believe affirmative action simply tells minorities that they will never be our equal and that we must give them charity. In concept I understand what it is trying to do, I just think it lowers the bar...and that is not what we need.

This is why those on the left are often called do-gooders or bleeding hearts. And those on the right can often times come across as heartless. Neither is really true, its just two very different approaches to solving problems. Which is why a lot of friction gets created.


Based on my lifes experiences I believe in the basic principles of the right. I was raised with a good family that taught me to take responsibility and to be accountable for my actions. I went to school and got a good education includint an MBA and several certifications. My parents helped with some, I paid for the rest.
I have a job but am also an entrepeneur. I have worked 12 hour days and 80 hour weeks trying to build myself up. I've teetered on the edge of bankruptcy due to some bad business choices. I've pulled myself up from the ashes only to fall again. In fact I am teetering on the edge of bankruptcy again as we speak. I was pretty heavy in real estate and took a good thumping.

But I will dig myself out. And I will do it without a handout. I will do it without a government bailout or stimulus. I will do it on my own with my bare hands. If I have to get on all fours and shovel shit, I'll do it. And I will be successful.

And to me that is the core difference between the right and the left.
Those on the left would be sympathetic. They would take pity on me and help me by giving me money to start over.
Those on the right would tell me to perservere and push through. Success is on other side of "that" challenge. They would tell me to learn from my mistakes and apply what I've learned in the future. They know that giving me a handout is like helping a baby butterfly from it's coocoon. It might help in the "now", but in the end I'd lose the ability to help myself...rather I would become dependent.

And that is exactly where the entitlement attitude in this country comes from. We're losing the ability to help ourselves because we rely on uncle sammy to do it for us.

I will finish by saying this. Those on the left are not bad people. Far from it. They have good intentions. But often times the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Keep in mind...there are several things where I do agree with the left on. But I am specifically talking about fiscal policy and economics. I don't want someone saying I think raped women should push through and have their racists baby or some crap like that.

JReed, good post. I agree with a lot of what you say here, I think I agree with you a good deal of the time. I do want to respectfuly point out one area where I believe you to be wrong. The portion of your opinion about people on the right not being giving and not giving handouts. A few months ago there was a big study done, Not sure who did it but it was all over the news and was even posted several times back at scam.com. It basically showed that conservatives actually gave more to charity than did liberals. And by a fairly significant margin. It was a big deal at the time and was all over the news and at scam. Im sure someone here may have an old link to it but I do not.

Some libs argued that it was not fair because they counted conservatives donations to churches as charitable donations and so those didnt count. Thats not a very strong argument as churches do huge amounts of work for people who need help. I personally know people who have received assistance from their church when they had lost a job or when times were tuff. They made it thru because their church stepped up and helped them.

Maybe Grim or someone has a link to the old threads about this on scam or some of the stories about it but im sure many here will remember that story.

Also Olbermann is a joke. lol The last time he was relevant was when he was on Sportscenter. Go back to ESPN Olbermann. lol

Jax74 wrote:Also Olbermann is a joke. lol The last time he was relevant was when he was on Sportscenter. Go back to ESPN Olbermann. lol

Point well taken. And this might be where my little pea brain is a bit warped.

To me, giving to charity isn't necessarily a handout. Most charities, to my knowledge, don't go handing out money to poor people. Instead they help them with food, clothing, eduction, or even building a home. Things like that.

So, IMO, charities and churches in essence help the person get back on their feet. People can get some food, shelter and clothes while they figure out their next move. These things are all designed to be temporary so the person can get going again. Right? To me, that is the basic principal behind charitable donations.

That is a bit different than a handout. A helping hand to get you going is different from simply eliminating all your problems like a government bailout would. Everyone needs help from time to time. But what the liberals (Obama)want is to take away all the problems. Erase them, no matter what the cost. Not only is that impossible, it's not practical.

JReed wrote:

Jax74 wrote:Also Olbermann is a joke. lol The last time he was relevant was when he was on Sportscenter. Go back to ESPN Olbermann. lol

Point well taken. And this might be where my little pea brain is a bit warped.

To me, giving to charity isn't necessarily a handout. Most charities, to my knowledge, don't go handing out money to poor people. Instead they help them with food, clothing, eduction, or even building a home. Things like that.

So, IMO, charities and churches in essence help the person get back on their feet. People can get some food, shelter and clothes while they figure out their next move. These things are all designed to be temporary so the person can get going again. Right? To me, that is the basic principal behind charitable donations.

That is a bit different than a handout. A helping hand to get you going is different from simply eliminating all your problems like a government bailout would. Everyone needs help from time to time. But what the liberals (Obama)want is to take away all the problems. Erase them, no matter what the cost. Not only is that impossible, it's not practical.

I agree with you here too. Maybe I was missunderstanding your post. It sounded like you thought people on the right were not willing to be helpful to those in need as much as people on the left.

P.S. No one here thinks you have a warped pea brain lol

P.S.S. I still think you have the coolest avatar here.

Val played the best Doc Holiday ever!

I can see where you'd think that's what I meant. To me it's more the type of help.

On the Right they will give you assistance so you can pull yourself up and figure things out. When they take a step, they expect you to take a step too.
On the left, I think they are more inclined to try to completely fix the problem for you.

I am of the opinion that if you get into a mess...it is important that you learn to get out of that mess.

Grim let me just play devil's advocate with you and tell me what you think. Below in red

Grim17 wrote:

I have a very fundamental disagreement with the policies put forth by those who embrace the liberal ideology. I disagree with their vision for America, and the direction they've been steering the country in for the last 40+ years.

The truth be told, I believe most liberals/democrats have the best intentions in the world. They strive for peace on earth, a clean environment and want to end all human suffering. I also believe they care about America, and want the country to continue to thrive. Now I'm going to explain the flaws with the liberal ideology as I see them, and I truly mean no offense to anyone.

I believe that liberals embrace policies and solutions superficially, without looking at the long term negative effects such policies and solutions will have on society years down the line. They believe that there is such a thing as a "perfect world" and often refuse to look beyond what's on paper. Conservatives tend to focus on the overall picture of America... What's good about about the country... Taking into account that America is not only "not perfect", but also that it can never be perfect. Liberals on the other hand, look at what's wrong with America and believe those things must be fixed, period... And until they are, America will never be a great country in their eyes. Here are some examples: First, there is nothing wrong with striving to be better. Liberals, and Conservatives both should be looking at the country and finding what is wrong and fix it. I would argue that the view of looking at the here and now is vice versa. I would argue that a war supported by the Conservatives looks good in the here and now because we are protecting "American interests", however, giving no thought to the long term effects this war will have on foreign relations down the road.

Socialism
On paper, socialism creates a balanced society where nobody is poor, and nobody is rich. Everyone has a home, nobody is hungry, everyone is equally educated, and the sick are taken care of. The way this is achieved is by the government taking control or imposing strict regulations on big business, creating massive government controlled programs (such as education and health care) and redistributing wealth by way of taxation.

On the other hand capitalism creates an unbalanced society where the richest 1% of the population decide what is best for the rest of the 99% of the country. Yes, they decide. It's not decided by votes like they want us to think, it's decided by rich lobbists, influencing rich politicians, who in turn create policies that make the rich richer. Not everybody has a home, only the rich get the best education while everyone else gets second tier education, and only the sick who can afford insurance are cared for.

Liberals embrace a more socialized system of government in America. In their view, it's the solution that will help lower middle class families and the poor, and put a stop to corporate greed. What they fail to see, is the overall effects it will have on the country as a whole. They don't take into account how everyone else will react to those policies, and how those reactions will negatively impact everyone, including those they were trying to help in the first place. In other words, they see social programs as the fix for a small group of peoples problems today, without taking into account how it will effect the majority of Americans and the country as a whole tomorrow.

Most of these policies you reference are designed to help lower middle class, middle class, and upper middle class. To be more specific, so far these tax increases Obama is supporting affect households that make $250k or more. Let me give some numbers on the US. 50% of households in the US make less than $50k a year. 70% make less than $75k a year. 3% make $250k or more. These programs you talk about will affect the richest 3% of Americans. These policies are not designed for a small group of people, they are designed for 97% of the country. Now you can argue whether these proposed programs accomplish that, and that may be for another discussion but my point is the intention here is to help 97% of the country by raising taxes on the richest 3% of the country.

As far as industry, Conservatives support no regulations on industry, and let the companies fight it out. The theory behind this is that the best company will win providing the best possible product at the best possible prices for the consumer. However, with no regulations, what ends up happening is companies grow unchecked and end up forming monopolies and gouging the consumer. You see companies merging to create huge conglomerates that chokes out competition. I've heard you talk about the American entrepreneurial spirit that allow those willing to work hard to succeed. These huge companies make that dream almost unatainable because the cost of entry into an industry is astronomical and smaller companies can't survive.

War
Most liberals oppose war of any kind. They believe there is always a peaceful solution. They look at war in the "now". They see innocent people die when a war is raged, so they do and say whatever is necessary to stop that killing. What they don't take into account, is the long term effects of inaction. In the case of Iraq, the choice to invade was based on an effort to secure long term peace, and prevent future killing and human suffering. They completely ignore the fact that Saddam was responsible for the deaths of over a half million of his own people during his time in power, not to mention those he tortured and jailed because they dared to oppose him. They also ignore Saddam's history of waging brutal wars with his neighbors, which includes the people he killed, raped and tortured when he invaded the peaceful country of Kuwait in 1991. Like I said, liberals tend to see things in the "now" when it comes to war, and often completely ignore history, as well as refuse to contemplate the effects that inaction will have on the future.

Grim, let me remind you that these anti war libral democrats are responsible for the following major wars in our recent history.

We entered WWI under Woodrow Wilson - Democrat
We entered WWII under Franklin Roosevelt - Democrat
We entered Vietnam under John Kennedy - Democrat
Our role in Vietnam was expanded under Lyndon Johnson - Democrat

So your argument that they oppose wars of anykind is incorrect. From the looks of it they are very much in favor of war, of all kinds.
*
.

JReed wrote:I have a somewhat similar view of what I consider a liberal.

Here are some of my random thoughts and beliefs. Most of this pertains to fiscal policy and certain government programs like welfare.

The key for me is the following. Success is a learned trait born from failure. I've learned this the hard way on several occassions. But some people never try. And because they never try, they fail. It is that simple. Education is the solution that we Americans seem to fear. I believe it was Bush that said we need education programs because the low level mfg jobs are leaving the country...so people need to learn new skills to get new jobs. And as I recall the liberals bashed him saying we need to keep those jobs here.

So when I look at the difference between the far right and the far left here is what I see.

On the far right we have a group of people that realize people will fail no matter what we do. And they tend to believe it is that individuals responsibility to take care of themselves. There are extenuating circumstances, but 99% of people are exactly where they are in life because that is where they choose to be. You are nothing more than the product of your own decisions...for better or worse. So while the far right feel a little empathy for someones problems, they don't tend to be too sympathetic, nor do they give handouts. Because those on the far right tend to believe that people learn more from their mistakes than they do from their successes. So by giving someone a free pass from their mistakes, they are actually hurting that person. Kinda like helping a new butterfly out of its cocoon.
The people on the far right also believe that some people will fall through the cracks no matter how good a system is. Some people will be corrupt no matter how diligent we are. And so the proposals from the people on the right tend to include punishments to account for this. the people on the right attempt to take basic human nature into account. As Dr. House always says...everyone lies to protect their own best interests.

On the far left we have people who also realize people will fail...however they tend to believe these people must be helped, that their suffering must stop. So they create programs to help these people...like welfare. While they realize people will take advantage of these programs, they believe the good they are doing outweighs the potential damage. So while a small percentage of people are able to use welfare to pull themselves back up, they also have people going to 4 states every week to get 4 seperate welfare checks from each...with no intention of ever working again...all because they know how to work the system. IMO what the people on the left fail to realize is that they are fighting human nature. The vast majority of people would be happy to take a handout rather than work for their money. I know I would. That's why we have the lottery. :-)

Affirmative action is a great example. Both sides of the aisle know what this country did to blacks in our history. But there are two proposed solutions. First, give minorities priority over whites. Or, let them build themselves up because the strongest steel is made in the hottest fire. I believe affirmative action simply tells minorities that they will never be our equal and that we must give them charity. In concept I understand what it is trying to do, I just think it lowers the bar...and that is not what we need.

This is why those on the left are often called do-gooders or bleeding hearts. And those on the right can often times come across as heartless. Neither is really true, its just two very different approaches to solving problems. Which is why a lot of friction gets created.


Based on my lifes experiences I believe in the basic principles of the right. I was raised with a good family that taught me to take responsibility and to be accountable for my actions. I went to school and got a good education includint an MBA and several certifications. My parents helped with some, I paid for the rest.
I have a job but am also an entrepeneur. I have worked 12 hour days and 80 hour weeks trying to build myself up. I've teetered on the edge of bankruptcy due to some bad business choices. I've pulled myself up from the ashes only to fall again. In fact I am teetering on the edge of bankruptcy again as we speak. I was pretty heavy in real estate and took a good thumping.

But I will dig myself out. And I will do it without a handout. I will do it without a government bailout or stimulus. I will do it on my own with my bare hands. If I have to get on all fours and shovel shit, I'll do it. And I will be successful.

And to me that is the core difference between the right and the left.
Those on the left would be sympathetic. They would take pity on me and help me by giving me money to start over.
Those on the right would tell me to perservere and push through. Success is on other side of "that" challenge. They would tell me to learn from my mistakes and apply what I've learned in the future. They know that giving me a handout is like helping a baby butterfly from it's coocoon. It might help in the "now", but in the end I'd lose the ability to help myself...rather I would become dependent.

And that is exactly where the entitlement attitude in this country comes from. We're losing the ability to help ourselves because we rely on uncle sammy to do it for us.

I will finish by saying this. Those on the left are not bad people. Far from it. They have good intentions. But often times the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Keep in mind...there are several things where I do agree with the left on. But I am specifically talking about fiscal policy and economics. I don't want someone saying I think raped women should push through and have their racists baby or some crap like that.

I agree with almost all you wrote Jreed, but I would like to point out one thing that I often notice...

People that say this:

There are extenuating circumstances, but 99% of people are exactly where they are in life because that is where they choose to be.

Also tend to say something like this:

was raised with a good family that taught me to take responsibility and to be accountable for my actions. I went to school and got a good education includint an MBA and several certifications. My parents helped with some, I paid for the rest.

I'm not having a dig at you, because I say both of those things as well. It's easy to think that our society gives people the freedom to be whatever you want when you're a white middle-class male with a supportive family and social network, and a good education. I just wonder if everyone has it so easy.

Kazza wrote:

JReed wrote:I have a somewhat similar view of what I consider a liberal.

Here are some of my random thoughts and beliefs. Most of this pertains to fiscal policy and certain government programs like welfare.

The key for me is the following. Success is a learned trait born from failure. I've learned this the hard way on several occassions. But some people never try. And because they never try, they fail. It is that simple. Education is the solution that we Americans seem to fear. I believe it was Bush that said we need education programs because the low level mfg jobs are leaving the country...so people need to learn new skills to get new jobs. And as I recall the liberals bashed him saying we need to keep those jobs here.

So when I look at the difference between the far right and the far left here is what I see.

On the far right we have a group of people that realize people will fail no matter what we do. And they tend to believe it is that individuals responsibility to take care of themselves. There are extenuating circumstances, but 99% of people are exactly where they are in life because that is where they choose to be. You are nothing more than the product of your own decisions...for better or worse. So while the far right feel a little empathy for someones problems, they don't tend to be too sympathetic, nor do they give handouts. Because those on the far right tend to believe that people learn more from their mistakes than they do from their successes. So by giving someone a free pass from their mistakes, they are actually hurting that person. Kinda like helping a new butterfly out of its cocoon.
The people on the far right also believe that some people will fall through the cracks no matter how good a system is. Some people will be corrupt no matter how diligent we are. And so the proposals from the people on the right tend to include punishments to account for this. the people on the right attempt to take basic human nature into account. As Dr. House always says...everyone lies to protect their own best interests.

On the far left we have people who also realize people will fail...however they tend to believe these people must be helped, that their suffering must stop. So they create programs to help these people...like welfare. While they realize people will take advantage of these programs, they believe the good they are doing outweighs the potential damage. So while a small percentage of people are able to use welfare to pull themselves back up, they also have people going to 4 states every week to get 4 seperate welfare checks from each...with no intention of ever working again...all because they know how to work the system. IMO what the people on the left fail to realize is that they are fighting human nature. The vast majority of people would be happy to take a handout rather than work for their money. I know I would. That's why we have the lottery. :-)

Affirmative action is a great example. Both sides of the aisle know what this country did to blacks in our history. But there are two proposed solutions. First, give minorities priority over whites. Or, let them build themselves up because the strongest steel is made in the hottest fire. I believe affirmative action simply tells minorities that they will never be our equal and that we must give them charity. In concept I understand what it is trying to do, I just think it lowers the bar...and that is not what we need.

This is why those on the left are often called do-gooders or bleeding hearts. And those on the right can often times come across as heartless. Neither is really true, its just two very different approaches to solving problems. Which is why a lot of friction gets created.


Based on my lifes experiences I believe in the basic principles of the right. I was raised with a good family that taught me to take responsibility and to be accountable for my actions. I went to school and got a good education includint an MBA and several certifications. My parents helped with some, I paid for the rest.
I have a job but am also an entrepeneur. I have worked 12 hour days and 80 hour weeks trying to build myself up. I've teetered on the edge of bankruptcy due to some bad business choices. I've pulled myself up from the ashes only to fall again. In fact I am teetering on the edge of bankruptcy again as we speak. I was pretty heavy in real estate and took a good thumping.

But I will dig myself out. And I will do it without a handout. I will do it without a government bailout or stimulus. I will do it on my own with my bare hands. If I have to get on all fours and shovel shit, I'll do it. And I will be successful.

And to me that is the core difference between the right and the left.
Those on the left would be sympathetic. They would take pity on me and help me by giving me money to start over.
Those on the right would tell me to perservere and push through. Success is on other side of "that" challenge. They would tell me to learn from my mistakes and apply what I've learned in the future. They know that giving me a handout is like helping a baby butterfly from it's coocoon. It might help in the "now", but in the end I'd lose the ability to help myself...rather I would become dependent.

And that is exactly where the entitlement attitude in this country comes from. We're losing the ability to help ourselves because we rely on uncle sammy to do it for us.

I will finish by saying this. Those on the left are not bad people. Far from it. They have good intentions. But often times the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Keep in mind...there are several things where I do agree with the left on. But I am specifically talking about fiscal policy and economics. I don't want someone saying I think raped women should push through and have their racists baby or some crap like that.

I agree with almost all you wrote Jreed, but I would like to point out one thing that I often notice...

People that say this:

There are extenuating circumstances, but 99% of people are exactly where they are in life because that is where they choose to be.

Also tend to say something like this:

was raised with a good family that taught me to take responsibility and to be accountable for my actions. I went to school and got a good education includint an MBA and several certifications. My parents helped with some, I paid for the rest.

I'm not having a dig at you, because I say both of those things as well. It's easy to think that our society gives people the freedom to be whatever you want when you're a white middle-class male with a supportive family and social network, and a good education. I just wonder if everyone has it so easy.

I 100% agree. And I know how fortunate I am. And I don't wonder if others are as lucky, I know many are not.

But I've also hit bottom (financially)...and it's amazing what happens to a social network when that happens. You figure out who your real friends are VERY fast.
Now, have I hit the bottom compared to others who were not born into good circumstances...no where near. But I am familiar with what it takes to make it when you're in trouble. It takes determination and hard work. It takes a never give up attitude. And I'll tell you what, those are qualities only a few people have. It is not a coincidence that they are, or will be successful. There are just too many rags to riches stories to ignore.

That's the beauty of capitalism...if you're willing to do what it takes you can do it. In socialism, it isn't possible to improve your situation.

And that's why I say people are where they are in life because of choices they made.

I believe Jim Rohn once said, you can't direct the wind, but you can set the sail.
Too many people spend all their time blaming the wind rather than setting the sail.

Big Slick wrote:Grim let me just play devil's advocate with you and tell me what you think. Below in red

First, there is nothing wrong with striving to be better. Liberals, and Conservatives both should be looking at the country and finding what is wrong and fix it. I would argue that the view of looking at the here and now is vice versa. I would argue that a war supported by the Conservatives looks good in the here and now because we are protecting "American interests", however, giving no thought to the long term effects this war will have on foreign relations down the road.

What I meant by saying liberals want to fix it now, is that liberals will throw out a solution that directly addresses a certain problem today (for instance, that helps a certain segment in our society), and they so often don't examine how that solution in the long term, might negatively effect both the people they were trying to help, as well as others in society. It's like they say "fix it now and deal with any problems it causes later".

I disagree with you about the war. I think the war was a long term solution against future terrorism. We went after al qaida, who was responsible for 9/11 and numerous other attacks against American interests over the last 15 years. Then we went after Saddam, based on the future threat he posed when the UN sanctions were lifted. A short term fix, would have been to continue using diplomatic channels to encourage the arrest of Bin laden and terrorists in his organization, continue with UN sanctions against Iraq (which had not been effective), and take measures to tighten security here in the US, and hope we weren't attacked again.

On the other hand capitalism creates an unbalanced society where the richest 1% of the population decide what is best for the rest of the 99% of the country. Yes, they decide. It's not decided by votes like they want us to think, it's decided by rich lobbists, influencing rich politicians, who in turn create policies that make the rich richer. Not everybody has a home, only the rich get the best education while everyone else gets second tier education, and only the sick who can afford insurance are cared for.

Capitalism isn't perfect, but it is the best economic governing system there's ever been.

Corruption and the buying of votes will happen no matter what system we're governed by. Socialism won't change that.

Everyone doesn't have to have their own home.

The reason everyone doesn't get the best education, is because the government run public school system is a failure.

And basic medical services are available to everyone who really needs them. There aren't people dying on the streets in America.

I will address the rest of your post, as soon as I can find some spare time.

Big Slick wrote:Grim let me just play devil's advocate with you and tell me what you think. Below in red

Most of these policies you reference are designed to help lower middle class, middle class, and upper middle class.

They may be designed to help all of those people, but many of them don't need help. That's one of the problems with socialized programs. When you implement for example, socialized medicine, all the people in those groups who either have coverage of some kind, or can afford to pay out of pocket for health care, will stop paying out of pocket and cancel their insurance programs to get a free ride from uncle Sam.

To be more specific, so far these tax increases Obama is supporting affect households that make $250k or more. Let me give some numbers on the US. 50% of households in the US make less than $50k a year. 70% make less than $75k a year. 3% make $250k or more. These programs you talk about will affect the richest 3% of Americans. These policies are not designed for a small group of people, they are designed for 97% of the country.

You have just illustrated what I have said before about socialism. It sounds great on paper.

I just saw an interview with a representative from an American small business association of some kind (don't remember the exact name, or where I saw it, but I will look for it if you like), and he pointed out that something like 75% of all the jobs in America come from small businesses. He then stated that the Obama tax plan, 50% of these businesses who employ 20 or more workers (the majority of the overall people employed by small business) will see the amount of money they pay to the government increase by an average of 20%. Do you realize the negative effect this will have on the working class? It will mean lay-offs, stagnant wages, cuts in employee benefits and an increase in the price of the goods and services these companies provide. This is only the effect on small business. Then factor in the huge tax increases for big business, an you can imagine how much Obama's plan will effect the American workforce and the overall economy in general.


Now you can argue whether these proposed programs accomplish that, and that may be for another discussion but my point is the intention here is to help 97% of the country by raising taxes on the richest 3% of the country.

His tax cuts will only provide an extra $13 per week to the average family, so I'm really having a hard time seeing how this will have a noticeable effect for people.

As far as industry, Conservatives support no regulations on industry, and let the companies fight it out. The theory behind this is that the best company will win providing the best possible product at the best possible prices for the consumer. However, with no regulations, what ends up happening is companies grow unchecked and end up forming monopolies and gouging the consumer. You see companies merging to create huge conglomerates that chokes out competition. I've heard you talk about the American entrepreneurial spirit that allow those willing to work hard to succeed. These huge companies make that dream almost unatainable because the cost of entry into an industry is astronomical and smaller companies can't survive.

I happen to support limited government regulation on big business. I think it's the government's job to protect consumers and the working class from being gouged and exploited. The regulations I oppose, are the ones that end up raising prices for consumers, such as Obama's "Cap & Trade" plan and the ridiculous fuel efficiency and emissions standards imposed on automakers. The CRA is another example of the type of government regulation I oppose. The government stepped in and told banks how they should conduct business, forcing them to lower their credit standards for loan applicants. This put the lending institutions, as well as the recipients of many of these loans at risk of financial collapse and bankruptcy. I think we are all aware of how this government regulation has played out.

Grim, let me remind you that these anti war libral democrats are responsible for the following major wars in our recent history.

We entered WWI under Woodrow Wilson - Democrat
We entered WWII under Franklin Roosevelt - Democrat
We entered Vietnam under John Kennedy - Democrat
Our role in Vietnam was expanded under Lyndon Johnson - Democrat

So your argument that they oppose wars of anykind is incorrect. From the looks of it they are very much in favor of war, of all kinds.

I'm talking about today... not past history. Lyndon Johnson's support for the Vietnam war was over 40 years ago.

Besides, I'm talking about the liberal ideology as a whole, not just politicians in Washington.

Thanks for the response Slick.