Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » So...what's the latest Lib talking points to discount the record high for the Dow? (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: So...what's the latest Lib talking points to discount the record high for the Dow?
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wait...I know!

The stock market experienced a record high because all of the nations republicans started investing in tech stocks to boost the production of child porn, because as we all now know, all Republicans and conservatives are really just gay men that want to talk dirty to young boys...So remember folks! You MUST vote Democrat to save this nation from the Gay Old Pedophiles!!!

[Wink] [Razz] [Big Grin] [Eek!] [LOL]


Oh yeah...one must never EVER put stock into the ridiculous notion that their is no liberal bias in the mainstream media's reporting on the economy!

quote:
Stock Market At All-Time High, But....

From the Chicago Tribune here's a Debbie Downer article about the stock market surge headlined, "As Dow Surges, Many Left Behind." Get your kleenexes ready:

"In current dollars, the economy is more than a third larger than six years ago, with gross domestic product, or annual output of goods and services, exceeding $13 trillion. Joblessness still is low at 4.7 percent.

But much has changed about the U.S. economy since the boom and the subsequent bust. Inequality within American society has grown. The budget deficit is looming as a major problem as the Baby Boomers begin to retire. Health-care costs have skyrocketed. The savings rate is negative as people go deeper in debt or use home equity loans to pay for purchases. Energy costs have surged until recent weeks.

At the same time, the housing market developed a bubble of its own in the past six years as the Federal Reserve kept interest rates low to prop up the economy. Now, home construction has tumbled, and prices generally have softened. Some fear the end of this bubble could sink the economy. Others disagree. Whatever the case, the economy is slowing down."


I decided to do a Lexis Nexis search of the Chicago Tribune for January 2000 to see if the paper also put a negative spin on the previous stock market surge (remember that surge occurred while Clinton was president). And guess what I found? An article with a very different tone. Starting with the exciting headline titled, "Bull Market Spreading The Wealth In America" and continuing through the many paragraphs touting the growth in wealth and the number of people investing in the stock market the article is remarkably different from today's.

The Trib did have one obligatory paragraph acknowledging the struggles of the poor in it's January 2000 article saying, "The one group swamped by the rising tide was the poorest of the poor. Although the booming economy has reduced the number of families earning very low incomes by a sixth, the 12.6 percent of families who were still earning under $10,000 a year watched their incomes stagnate and their net worth fall between 1989 and 1998." But they explain that away by quoting analysts who believed that the numbers were being dragged down by people escaping extreme poverty. Interesting that we never hear that excuse when the same trends occur with republican presidents in office.

Let's dissect the Tribune's exuberant article to see if the current situation is much worse. The Tribune quotes extensively from the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances, a triennial report which shows data from 1995, 1998, 2001 and 2004. I've added the data from the 2004 report for comparison purposes alongside the Tribune's quotes from its previous article.

"Fully 48.8 percent of families owned stocks either directly or through retirement accounts and mutual funds in 1998, up sharply from the 40.4 percent who owned stocks in 1995."

In 2004, 48.6% of families owned stock, essentially the exact same percentage so any improvement in the stock market would be felt equally in 1998 and 2004.

"The median family, which means half owned more and half less, watched its net worth rise 17.6 percent to $71,600 between 1995 and 1998. That put the average American family a stunning $11,900 ahead of where it was in 1989."

In 2004, the median family's net worth was $93,100, a 12% increase over 1998. Pretty stunning, too.

"Nearly 1 in 2 now have retirement accounts with a median value of $24,000; one in five families own individual stocks with the median portfolio valued at $17,500; and 1 in 6 own mutual funds whose median value was $25,000. All were substantially higher than three years earlier."

In 2004 nearly 1 in 2 owned retirement accounts with a median value of $35,200; one in five families owned individual stocks with a median value of $15,000 and about one in six families owned pooled investment funds with a median value of $40,400

"The remarkable gains in household wealth have come despite the slow growth in wages and salaries for most workers. Indeed, the survey showed that the number of families saving out of their incomes--55.9 percent--remains virtually unchanged from three years earlier and was still below its 1992 levels. But the ability of low-income workers to move up the wage ladder is improving their financial prospects in other ways. The survey showed that the number of families without a checking account fell to 13.2 percent in 1998 from 18.7 percent a decade ago."

That percent was at 10.6% in 2004. In addition, the percentage of families saving increased slightly to 56.1% in 2004. In fact, a comparison of families in the bottom 20th percentile showed that between 1998 and 2004, the percentage that saved increased from 32.1% to 34.0%. Hmmm, I guess that means low-income workers' prospects have continued to improve.

And how come the Tribune excuses the slow wage growth in 2000, but doesn't in it's article today? Instead the Tribune quoted Diane Swonk, an economist for Mesirow Financial in Chicago and Jared Bernstein, an economist for the Economic Policy Institute, who said that wages have stagnated when, in fact, recent reports indicate that's not the case.

Much of the today's Tribune article focuses on globalization and its negative effects on workers. Diane Swonk is quoted as saying, "People are being completely displaced by globalization. You can't really train them. How do you retrain a 55-year-old United Auto Worker?"

But a United Auto Worker's situation isn't any different now than when we had the technology boom. You can pose the same question about retraining a 55 year-old auto worker to fit in the tech world. Essentially, they would have had the same problem in 2000, the Tribune just chose not to mention it then. Unskilled workers will always have trouble adjusting to work requiring a college degree if their jobs are phased out. That doesn't mean the economy is bad or the world is unfair.

It would be helpful if the Chicago Tribune reporters and editors could leave their biases at the door, but this comparison shows they cannot. When Clinton was in office and the stock market surged as a result of a strong ecnonomy, the Tribune reported it by quoting facts from the Federal Reserve. Yet when Bush is in office and the stock market surges because the economy is equally strong, the Tribune ignores the facts and quotes special interest groups to downplay the postive.

People don't believe the economy is strong because they're constantly told it isn't by the media. They media, as The Anchoress noted, lies with its headlines, and this is a perfect example.


Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why the fixation on "liberal talking points?"
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nah, the stock market has no connection whatsoever to the actual market, and rich people are just getting richer because of the tax cuts, while the average joe has no stocks, and is working three jobs just to make enough to get by. The economy is completely tanked, and the stock market has absolutely no connection to it.

*** REMINDER: THIS IS NOT MY OPINION - I'M PRETENDING IT IS SOMEONE ELSE'S ***

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just remember the difference between a recession and a depression.

A recession is when you lose your job.

A depresssion is when I lose my job. [Smile]

If I own a lot of stock, then Bush is doing a great job.

If I own a little stock, and my paycheck hasn't been keeping up with inflation, then Bush has been doing a mediocre job.

If I own no stock, and I lost my job to downsizing and shipping jobs overseas, then Bush is the worst President ever.

It all depends on your perspective. [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by javelin:
Nah, the stock market has no connection whatsoever to the actual market, and rich people are just getting richer because of the tax cuts, while the average joe has no stocks, and is working three jobs just to make enough to get by. The economy is completely tanked, and the stock market has absolutely no connection to it.

*** REMINDER: THIS IS NOT MY OPINION - I'M PRETENDING IT IS SOMEONE ELSE'S ***

STRAWMAN! [Wink]
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Simple, Daruma: the Dems weren't in control to take credit for it. That's The Rule. The Other Rule is: if your party loses a 6 year-long winning streak to the other party just in time for the economy to crumble under their tootsies, it's Their Fault, not yours.

Incidentally, my understanding is that small investors have not been much on board this current bull market.

"Why the fixation on "liberal talking points?""

Daruma is on a mission to apply the word liberal as a de facto epithet in as many ways as possible.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not on a mission. "Liberal" is already an epithet. Tell me when the last liberal candidate ran for a national office while proudly procaliming to be one? Hillary, who is without a doubt a LIBERAL has been spending the last 4 years trying to "move to the center" and play down her leftwing ideas.

And, of course, that has nothing to do with Republicans and Democrats anymore, as the current regime of Repubs have shown no compunctions about controlling domestic discretionary spending on entitlement programs.

"Compassionate Coservatism" is just a fancy way for Republicans to avoid being labeled for what they are: LIBERAL.

"Progressives" is just a fancy way for Democrats to avoid being labeled for what they are: LIBERAL

And please spare me the "Liberal" definition from the dictionary. The real meaning of "liberal" today has about as much relevance to it's original defintion as "gay" does today to it's original definition of 50 years ago.

Democrats and Republicans are now two side of the same coin of liberalism.

A pox on them all.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So ALL talking points are Liberal talking points?
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Unless if they're Libertarian
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Investors see that republicans are on the way toward losing power and so stocks are rising.
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Democrats and Republicans are now two side of the same coin of liberalism.
Then why do you quote an article that worries about the media having a liberal bias (which, in this case, means Democrat)? Why cite an article that calls the media unfair to Republicans?

Obviously, the stock market went up because Liberals are in charge! [Big Grin]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
1) It's not actually a record, after adjusting for inflation.

2) The riches ain't trickling down. wages are stagnant. What does it help me that fotune 500 types are making a killing?

3) Why do I even bother?

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"3) Why do I even bother?"

Because you're a liberal. [Wink] [Big Grin]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"It's not actually a record, after adjusting for inflation."

BINGO...there it is.

Thanks for answering the thread's intial question Ricky!

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I'm not on a mission. "Liberal" is already an epithet."

Mission (or non-mission) unaccomplished. That is, liberal is not a universal epithet. 1/3 of folks think it a compliment, another 1/3 think it no more demeaning than, say, conservative. But 1 out of 3 ain't bad.

Funny about inflation. It's everyone's favorite size adjustor. 'After adjusting for inflation, average pecker size is actually only about average, or perhaps a little more or less.'

'Hon-ee, is that a bicycle pump you're... omigod. It is.'

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma,

quote:

BINGO...there it is.

Thanks for answering the thread's intial question Ricky!

When people complain about the price per Barrel of Gasoline, the inflation adjusted price is brought up. Whenever you are talking about comparative economics the only legitimate comparison method is to use inflation adjusted (or better PPP adjusted) numbers.

However, ignoring that, I have pointed out previously that until massive retirements occur the stock market will have money steadily pumped into it from pension funds. With a market cap of 8.8 trillion for the NYSE assume annual pension contributions of 200 billion (employer share of pension contributions for top 100 US companys for 2005 was about 50 billion so the 200 billion is a bit hand wavy but couldn't find better numbers in a quick search)

so .2 trillion/8.8 trillion is a 2.3% annual stock market growth rate from pensions assuming zero investment otherwise. Or a five year growth rate of .2*5/8.8 = 11.4% (or .2*5/(8.8+.2*5) = 10.2% since the growth would happen in both ...).

Of course the NYSE isn't the complete stock market cap, stocks aren't the only investment vehicle for pensions, this ignores the impact of non US pension investments, and quite a few other large grains of salt that affect the calculations in both directions.

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It seems that Daruma's interest is in the affiliation of those making a claim more than the validity of the claim made, no?
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
no.
Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, why does it matter what the "lib talking point" is? If the news is supposed to look good for republicans and bad for democrats, and both are liberals, what talking points could cover both positions?

[ October 04, 2006, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Though they are both basically "liberal" they are still opposed to each other on a variety of issues...and the mainstream press is basically staffed with Democrat favored writers and editors.

Aside from that, I speak of "liberal" as in one who believes in an activist, strong central government to implement their agenda and provide entitlement benefits administered by oversized bureacracies, and than tax and spend (Dems) or borrow and spend (Reps) to buy votes by funding those programs, all in the effort to strive to maintain incumbency.

Anyhow, I was really just posing a rhetorical question for the thread title to take a humorous jab at all my favorite liberal sparring partners here. [Smile]

[ October 04, 2006, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually the latest liberal talking point is easy. It's taken SIX YEARS for the Dow Jones to get back to where it used to the level it was regularly at in 2000. Having a record high isn't all that impressive if the high just means you've finally climbed out of a hole and matched pre-crash prices.

Now admittedly the crash itself was nobody's fault (the IT bubble and the effect of 9/11 on the market were phenomena that happened independently of partisan politics), but the state of the Dow today is hardly something to get excited about.

Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"...the state of the Dow today is hardly something to get excited about."

Well, you just wait until I take my trusty bicycle pump to it. It'll be exciting, alright.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Aside from that, I speak of "liberal" as in one who believes in an activist, strong central government to implement their agenda and provide entitlement benefits administered by oversized bureacracies, and than tax and spend (Dems) or borrow and spend (Reps) to buy votes by funding those programs, all in the effort to strive to maintain incumbency."

Nicely put.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is the height of political arrogance to claim credit for economic output - arrogance that approaches Al Gore levels.

While government has the ability to act as an inhibitor or a catalyst to the economy, it is the men and women in the private sector who are fueling the reaction.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seems to me much of the up/down movement is tied to the Federal reserve these days. Or, at least, the MSM would have us believe...

Guess what? The Federal Reserve is no more federal than Fedex (heard that the other day but don’t remember who said it)! Therefore, The Drake is correct - it's not the government affecting the economy, it's this private board of bankers know as the Federal Reserve.

But, of course, that's another discussion altogether.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma,

This is what, the third time (?) recently that you have dive-bombed this site with some over-inflated, Drudge report line of argument. And, as usual, its taken Letterip about 5 seconds to point out where you and reality disagree. Maybe you should consider the potential for irony before leveling accusations of "talking points" .

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interesting that our prez picks the chief of the Fed Reserve even though it's a private body. Odd arrangement. (I intend no conspiratorial overtones here. It's just a weird, casual kind of thing, is all.)

Or am I wrong? Maybe the prez son't pick the Fed Reserve chief? Well, I think he does...

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We decided against a Hamiltonian central bank, remember?
Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"We decided against a Hamiltonian central bank, remember?"

Yeah, but only once [Wink]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK, maybe a couple of times. But then we decided to have one after all. Sort of.

The government central bank is a series of Federal IOUs extending beyond the orbit of the moon. We cal it The Budget. The Fed Reserve is a string of YOUs (You Owe Us) governed by, among other things, something called a prime lending rate.

'tis an interesting tango.

[ October 05, 2006, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Oh yeah...one must never EVER put stock into the ridiculous notion that their is no liberal bias in the mainstream media's reporting on the economy!"

Or that there is ever a lack in the media for bias of ANY stripe, be it liberal, conservative, Martian communist, Peruvian flake, or Navajo creation myth...

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
Daruma,

This is what, the third time (?) recently that you have dive-bombed this site with some over-inflated, Drudge report line of argument. And, as usual, its taken Letterip about 5 seconds to point out where you and reality disagree. Maybe you should consider the potential for irony before leveling accusations of "talking points" .

Adam

Why Adam? I was just curious to see what the talking points of the liberal side were, because both the liberals and conservatives ALWAYS have their talking points in order for any event or issue.

I don't watch the news on TV, and I barely read the papers anymore, so most of my news that I get comes from reading blogs and the 2 minute news updates on the radio station I hear at work every day.

So I really wanted to know what the "talking points" for the record Dow was. Are you denying that there are none? That the liberals/Democrats did not in fact credit Clinton for the economy of the 90's and now strive to minimize or take away all of the credit for the current economy now that it's the Republican's running the show? Or that the Republicans are not spinning their own talking points to try and take as much credit as possible?

Besides, as I've already pointed out in this thread, I was really seeking to actually poke fun at the overwhelmingly liberal membership of the forum rather than make a truly substantive point. [Razz]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Are you denying that there are none?
There might well be, I think only one or two posters on the board would even have a slight possibility of access to such though.

quote:
Besides, as I've already pointed out in this thread, I was really seeking to actually poke fun at the overwhelmingly liberal membership of the forum rather than make a truly substantive point.
Eh I just did a rough count of posters and it appears about the same number of conservative as liberal posters is posting. The only major difference appears to be the volume of posts (kenmeers bazillion posts a day...).

Also I think you have a tendency to view anyone not strongly conservative as liberal.

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I was just curious to see what the talking points of the liberal side were, because both the liberals and conservatives ALWAYS have their talking points in order for any event or issue.
Sorry. I didn't realize your were looking for the party line on this issue. I have no idea what it is--I'm not in the loop. I just consider what seems reasonable at any given time.

I hope that doesn't mean I'm not "liberal" enough for you. [Wink]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LMAO - probably true LR.

Or maybe it just seems to me like every thread based on the standard ideological divide seems to be Jav, Pete or G2 versus 6 or seven self-avowed liberals piling on.

I can't recall the last time I saw an opposite thread, where a liberal posted something and a whole bunch of conservative posters piled on in similar fashion.

I dunno...I did take about a month off from really posting here recently, and basically just lurked and read everything everyday without adding my $.02 cents in. I used to think Ornery was pretty well balanced between the two spheres of political ideology..but when I just read without participating, I did get the impression that most of the active participants here are self-described liberals/Democrats, and that Bush/GOP bashing/criticizing is pretty much the topic du jour of this here forum.

And that always gets me back to my original question I once asked here a couple of years ago:

What is it about OSC's writings that attracts a large audience of liberal minded folks -- who often assume that OSC is of a similar mindset to themselves, and are shocked and outraged when they find out he's not?

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ditto LR, this has always been a pretty balanced board, with the whole spectrum represented. As was said, when you opt to occupy the far right, then yes, everyone else is to the left of you. But its not like Liberal and Everard go around accusing moderate liberals like Wayward and I of being conservatives. A little perspective is a good thing.

I realize that you (daruma) just intended to bait people, but I'm not quite sure why you think thats a good idea. How is that not being a troll?

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Usually when 6 or 7 people pile on someone is because those 6 or 7 find what the person wrote a bit outrageous. At least, that's why I usually pile on someone. [Smile]

I must admit that I have been wondering why there hasn't hardly been any accusations of "Bush bashing" lately. Usually when someone said something against the President, the person was accused of hating anything that Bush did. But that seems to have died down lately. I figured it was because even the conservatives have been tired in defending him.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma brews his own brawls. He's good at it. He starts off openly inviting liberalism to be the topic of contention and mockery, and gets just that.

It's a skill.

Troll? Depends on how gruff he gets one's goat.

"(kenmeers bazillion posts a day...)."

Is NOT! Only a gazillion!

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are you sure, kenmeer? I thought I counted a good quazillion one day.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I figured it was because even the conservatives have been tired in defending him."

You have a point here.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1