i may be a conservative.. although those are all definition of a "liberal" . as in personal liberties.

Media's approach to the news these days.

A Harley biker is riding by the zoo in Washington, DC when he sees a little
girl leaning into the lion's cage. Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the cuff
of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter her, under the eyes
of her screaming parents.
The biker jumps off his Harley, runs to the cage and hits the lion square on
the nose with a powerful punch.
Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back letting go of the girl, and the
biker brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly. A
reporter has watched the whole event.
The reporter addressing the Harley rider says, 'Sir, this was the most
gallant and brave thing I've seen a man do in my whole life.'
The Harley rider replies, 'Why, it was nothing, really, the lion was behind
bars. I just saw this little kid in danger and acted as I felt right.'
to be con-ed..

con..e
The reporter says, 'Well, I'll make sure this won't go unnoticed. I'm a
journalist, you know, and tomorrow's paper will have this story on the front
page... So, what do you do for a living and what political affiliation do
you have?'
The biker replies, 'I'm a U. S. Marine and a Republican.' The journalist
leaves.
The following morning the biker buys the paper to see if it indeed brings
news of his actions, and reads, on the front page:
U. S. MARINE ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH
That pretty much sums up the media's approach to the news these days.

I, in general dislike when people are put into "boxes"
why limit yourself? this whole discussion is about what to put into what box and how to label that box. What's the point?
Look at issues as issues ...
everybody at the end whats the same things.... they just use different words to call them. And different rhetoric resonates with them.

But, Julia, how can we possibly look at the issues as issues? Who can possibly see anything for what it is behind media's firewall? Any media, for that matter.How can you form an intelligent opinion about someone/something while all we know about him/her/it are bits and pieces fed to us from the monitors, TV screens, and, increasingly more influential, Talk Radio? Can you form an opinion about a person from just one conversation with that person? You can get an idea, but you might be wrong.(To be continued)

I doubt that anybody here have spent any time reading entire books, speeches or written legislation of the people we are discussing. Judging Sara Palin's entire persona by the spoof of a TV interview by a comedy show ( I can see Russia from my house) is exactly the same as calling BHO a terrorist, a Muslim pawn, and questioning his citizenship. Bits & pieces, free soup from the same soup kitchen that decided to make Tiger Woods the center of the universe all of a sudden.

And, my dear Obama-voting friends, you should be that last group of people making fun of Sara Palin. By voting for a complete unknown with ZERO political experience, because he is:
a) Not Bush
b) Tall
c) African American
d) using Blackberry
e) playing basketball
you brought upon the era of politicians who will be judged by the other half of America for being:
a) Not Obama
b) Hot
c) able to field dress a mousse
d) able to have 5 children with the same spouse
e) able to see Russia from their house

Oleg, how on Earth do you know what we based our decision on?
How can you speak for more then 50% of the population - aren't you stereotyping, just a little? aren't you bunching too many people together? Come on, you can do better then that.... It sounds the same as if I was saying that all conservatives are g-d fearing illiterate gun -loving whatever... I would never say such a thing... I have enough respect for those Republicans who are educated, fiscally conservative, have country interests in mind....
really, you can do better then caricatures...

Julia, I am not saying that you voted for him for that reason, but you did not have a field day with Palin being an illiterate, bible bearing, Bambi killing degenerate either.

The following morning the biker buys the paper to see if it indeed brings
news of his actions, and reads, on the front page:
U. S. MARINE ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH
That pretty much sums up the media's approach to the news these days.
Very good! :-D Партизаны среди нас.
Imagine, if Sarah Palin were a flaming liberal and aborted her baby, and ran as a vice-presidential candidate with Obama:
She would have a halo around her head , like Obama. And she would be proclaimed the biggest woman's advocate and the smartest woman in America ( like Hillary) .
All she needs to do to earn all that respek from the left, is to change the parties. :-D

you honestly believe that Hillary is considered intelligent just because she's a democrat? please don't even compare the two. next thing you're gonna say is that GW is just as smart as Bill.
andjust imagine the field day conservatives would have with a female candidate who chose to abort her baby.

There was a very interesting book review in the "Bookshelf" section of WSJ yesterday. The column (The Siren Call of Tyranny) discussed the book "Last Exit to Utopia" by famous French political philosopher Jean-Francois Revel.
I was fascinated by this thought : "The totalitarian phenomenon," Revel observed years ago, "is not to beunderstood without making an allowance for the thesis that someimportant part of every society consists of people who actively wanttyranny: either to exercise it themselves or—much more mysteriously—tosubmit to it."
********online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704240504574585881108040134.html

'Last Exit to Utopia" was first published in France nearly a decadeago. It concerns itself primarily with the failure of much of theFrench left to come to grips with the collapse of communism and theexposure of its innumerable crimes. The events and debates under itsreview date mainly to the 1990s, and its author died in 2006.
Yet the book, at last available in English in this fine translation,ought to command close attention because it was written byJean-Francois Revel, who—unlike such bien-pensant idols asJean-Paul Sartre (an admirer of Stalin) and Michel Foucault (acheerleader of the Ayatollah Khomeini)—deserves to be ranked as thepre-eminent French political philosopher of the second half of the 20thcentury. What's more, the book's themes continue to resonate today,when murderous ideologies still compete for legitimacy and"enlightened" understanding by the Western intelligentsia.

Revel's great subject was totalitarianism, not just its practice butalso its intellectual methods, deceits and disturbing psychologicalattractions. In books such as "The Totalitarian Temptation" (1976) and"How Democracies Perish" (1983), he dissected the mind-set of Westernintellectuals who, living in democracies, found much to admire in gulagcountries like the Soviet Union and Cuba and much to detest in freeones—the U.S. most of all.
Why was that? "The totalitarian phenomenon," Revel observed years ago,"is not to be understood without making an allowance for the thesisthat some important part of every society consists of people whoactively want tyranny: either to exercise it themselves or—much moremysteriously—to submit to it.

It was a temptation that proved to be remarkably resilient.Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the once fellow-travelingEuropean left had no choice but to admit that the god to which it hadlong rendered faithful service had been an illusion, and incurablydysfunctional to boot. Yet that grudging concession, as Revel observed,did little to chasten the former groupies of totalitar ianism. On thecontrary, it served as a springboard for a fresh assault onliberal-democratic principles.
The tipping point, in Revel's view, was the publication in 1997 of"The Black Book of Communism," an 800-page compendium of the serialbarbarities of communist regimes from China and Ethiopia to Russia andCambodia.

This massive scholarly undertaking, meticulous in its research andincontrovertible in its findings, was instantly greeted with fury bymuch of the French intelligentsia, which refused to accept that its owneyes-wide-shut apologetics for the likes of Mao, Mengistu, Stalin andPol Pot were no less a form of complicity in mass murder than Holocaustdenial.Nor could this same intelligentsia acknowledge that the collapse ofcommunism was the supreme vindication for Cold War anticommunists suchas Revel, long reviled as a political paranoid and closet fascist.Instead, the left's new refrain was that, whatever the excesses ofcommunism, they were as nothing next to those of "liberaltotalitarianism" and "savage capitalism." Communism, in this view, morethan redeemed itself through its aspirations for social justice. And tothe extent that actual Communist regimes—namely, all of them—fell shortof that ideal, it merely proved that they hadn't been Communist tobegin with!

Of this mental fortress, Revel acidly writes: "Utopia is not underthe slightest obligation to produce results: its sole function is toallow its devotees to condemn what exists in the name of what doesnot." Thus the political collapse of communism offered members of thehard left an avenue of ideological resurrection, since they couldreturn to their favorite pastime of lambasting globalization and otherAmerican conspiracies to enslave the world without having to suffer anyunpalatable reminders of some of the alternatives—the Berlin Wall, forinstance.
Then again, this approach, by underscoring the far left'sprotectionist and xenophobic impulses, also served to expose itshistoric kinship with the far right. Here Revel instructively reprisesthe Nazis' profound debt to Marxism (Hitler once described himself as"not merely the vanquisher of Marxism [but also] its implementer") aswell as to the anti-Semitic and racist dogmas of Karl Marx.

"What is the worldly religion of the Jew?" Marx asked."Huckstering. What is his God? Money." Communism, according to itsfounding father, "would make the Jew impossible."
Revel's analysis helps to make senseof the latest version of the totalitarian temptation, this time the temptation of radical Islam (though "Last Exit to Utopia" does not explicitly broach the subject). Strange as it may seem, today's Western"progressives," whose domestic political fixations include gay marriage and abortion rights, nonetheless frequently find themselves making common cause with Muslim fanatics for whom such things are anathema.
This seemingly strange affiliation has partly to do with a shared loathing, among radical leftists and radical Islamists, of the U.S. and Israel.

But as Revel astutely notes, the deeper bond is what he calls the"excommunication of modernity," a mark of the left going back to theprimitivist and anti-civilizational musings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau.The Islamists understand this commonality as well: Among the doctrinalsources cited by Osama bin Laden, one finds not only the Quran but alsothe works of Noam Chomsky.

Anyone who thinks the totalitarian temptation lies buried in Lenin's mausoleum would do well to read this book, a fitting literary capstone in the career of one of France's true immortals.




Mr. Stephens is the Journal's foreign-affairs columnist and a deputy editorial page editor.

next thing you're gonna say is that GW is just as smart as Bill

GW had an SAT score of 1206 and Slick Willy of 1032..
SAT score has a very close correlation with IQ. So maybe Dabya is a smarter man..

I was actually trying to figure out how GW got into HBS and what was his GMAT score. But i guess at the time GMAT was not required :(.

The problem with lots (not all) of conservatives is that they can't speak well - not great public speakers...someone like Reagan, who was great at public speaking, wrote some of his speeches himself, doesn't come along that often..maybe it's because most conservatives are not lawyers..(ch) anyway, but that how public judges intelligence nowadays..
I think Bush was better before his presidency, and even in the beginning, but then got so much on his plate, that giving great speeches was not his first priority..funny his bro Jeb, is a much better speaker, doesn't have the Texas accent, and, I think, is pretty bright..
IMO liberals are just better at demagoguery...

we don't know how many times GW and Billtook the SAT's, what kind of preparation each had, and whether or not Bill smoked a little too much pot before the test. also, considering the family's connections, I wouldn't be surprised if GW had an advance copy of the exam.

anyway, but that how public judges intelligence nowadays..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
how?based on the abilityto express oneself intelligently and coherently? should we judge intelligence based on the swimsuit competition, instead?
if GW had a lot on his plate(absolutely nothing the first 8 months in office, except a cushy little surplus), then Obama's plate is overflowing.

lol on the "advance copy of the exam"
and Willy "did not inhale" :)
a president is only as good as his advisers IMHO..

Lina, GW had also graduated from the same college as Kerry with higher GPA. Also family connections?

Oleg, my college roommate was on the basketball team - her coach could pull strings like you wouldn't believe. Kids in frats and sororities usually had copies of old exams - most professors are too lazy towrite new ones.Quite a few college students paid others to write their papers (not frat members - they had archives full of research papers)... And I guess you're not aware of the recent cash for grades scandals. Everything (well, almost)in this world can be bought - everything except real intelligence.

going back to the point how to judge intelligence of a politician, I think it sould be based on political accomplisments (not diplomas and speeches)...Palin has proven to be a capable mayor, governor (eventhough he resigned prematurely, because she felt she was becoming ineffective)..Bush was a good governor in Texas...president? history will judge him..

***********.thrfeed.com/2009/12/oreilly-attacks-law-order-calls-wolf-despicable-vid.html

1. but look at the clipfrom O'Reilly where he discusseshim and others having being accused ofspreading hate on Law and Order because he often talks about illegal immigration..

2. he discusses it with Laura Ingraham...now,that's what angers and puzzles me - why conservatives as intelligent, as articulate, as educated (law degree) as her don't run for office to make a difference if they are so concerned with their country and do radio, write books instead, and we have a Congress full of old bags?? maybe because they don't want to dragged through the mud?..

One of my colleagues got a call from the football coach "to be easy on the players". After seeing that usual discussion on academic responsibilities would not get to this guy he sad: "If the football team were actually good, I could see why you'd call me and ask for that. Look at your record first!"
This story has nothing to do with this discussion, of course :-)

.Palin has proven to be a capable mayor, governor (eventhough heresigned prematurely, because she felt she was becoming ineffective)..
Palin did not resign because she felt she was becoming ineffective- she was buried under an avalanche of frivolous ethical complaints from a small group of vicious Alinskiites guided by an East Coast liberal lawyer. They learned that under Alaska new ethical reform anybody in the wolrd can file an ethical complaint against any politician. So, they just flooded Palin and her staff with totally meaningless ethical complaints all of which were overturned. But Palin had to pay out of pocket to deal with the leagalites and paperwork. It eventually bankropted them and paralyzed the governing abilites. she had to pay $500,000 of HER ONW money for the crap.
This tactic comes straight from the radical lefties cookbooks.
That's why they are so despicable.

Yes! Every time that happens -- a politician should immediately resign. :-) I thought good politicians should have a skin for those things -- or turn them in their advantage.
I am no Republican, but I respect many Republicans. She is not one of them...

Because you don't understand the situation and judging like a knee-jerk democrat.(ch) No offense.

Because you don't understand the situation and judging like a knee-jerk democrat.(ch) No offense.

LASVEGAS (AP) - The owner of a brothel more than two hours' drive fromLasVegas said she hopes to hire Nevada's first legal maleprostituteswithin a month, now that state health officials haveapproved a methodto test men for infectious diseases.
The worldis ready for women, or even other men, to legally buy sex,said ShadyLady Ranch owner Bobbi Davis. Plus, being the first to offermaleservice could boost business in tough economic times, she said.


Nev. brothel aims to offer 1st male prostitutes ;-)
********apnews.myway.com/article/20091213/D9CILPFO0.html

I forgot to post it in this group earlier, not sure if it's the right topic (ch) but when talking about politics it's always appropriate to mention prostitution at the same time - isn't it almost the same? (dt)
Maша, I liked you reaction to the news..(H)

Because you don't understand the situation and judging like a knee-jerk democrat.(ch) No offense.
Maria, why do you say that? Do you live in Alaska and voted for her? Or you have any other special relationship with her? Or you just produce a Republican knee-jerk reaction?
I used to respect John McCain. Initially, I thought that his selection of the running mate was brilliant - canceled out many "non-political" Obama's advantages. I thought so until she opened her mouth... Her vice-presidential debate (which I watched in its entirely) was disastrous, her interviews showed lack of education and logic, etc.

Personally, I think that she has no chances to become the President. Here are several reasons:
1. She projects a role of the victim (of a situation, press, leftconspiracy, McCain, etc.) -- and that's her only image. Well, besidesthat of a hockey Mom - although there plenty of them in Michigan who canactually teach their own kids :-).
Imagine how that ("victim") would look coming from the President of the most powerful country in the world.
2. She does not appear to be a good politician. Calling herself a lame duck in the middle of the first term (!) and then quitting soon after? America does not like quitters.
3. She does not appear to have any coherent national program. Chatter-box empty statements about "creating jobs" and "lowering taxes" do not count.
etc.
There are many powerful and smart women in the Republican party. What's with that one?

***********.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-12-14-atheist-politician_N.htm
North Carolina councilman may face lawsuit over his atheism
brilliant!! :-D :-D :-D

Aleksey, good points, everyone of them. However, Obama prospered on similar platform, (being a victim, an outsider, being an absolute opposite of the ruling party). I think GOP will go for it.

Obama prospered on similar platform, (being a victim, an outsider, being an absolute opposite of the ruling party)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Victim? When have you ever heard Obama blaming whitey for his misfortunes? Palin comes off as an annoying, whiny, babbling housewife.

Oleg, how on Earth do you know what we based our decision on?
How can you speak for more then 50% of the population - aren't you stereotyping, just a little? aren't you bunching too many people together?
Julia, I cannot imagine that BHO was your choice originally (before the primaries). If I know a thing or two, you must be a Hillary supporter (which to me was the Democratic party's intelligent choice). If you want to tell me that Democratic Party's base have voted for Obama for any other reason besides him being Not-Bush in presidential election, then 50% of voters (not population) are crazy, which they are not. So, please don't tell me that he was a smart choice of moderate Democrats like yourself.