« Well, look on the bright side | Main | The poor are much better off than they used to be »

You'd better sit down for this, Part II

Hot on the heels of this groundbreaking report on left-wing, anti-American bias at the BBC, we now have this stunner: journalists donate overwhelmingly more money to Democrats than to Republicans.

Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans....

The pattern of donations, with nearly nine out of 10 giving to Democratic candidates and causes, appears to confirm a leftward tilt in newsrooms....

This confirms what most of us already knew. Namely, that journalists are... bad at math. Because that looks more like a seven-to-one ratio to me, but whatever.

Anyway, not all media outlets allow these kinds of political contributions from employees. Chief among these is the New York Times. Why not, one wonders? This was actually my favorite bit.

As the policy at the Times puts it: "Given the ease of Internet access to public records of campaign contributors, any political giving by a Times staff member would carry a great risk of feeding a false impression that the paper is taking sides."

Yeah, God forbid that people perceive a bias at the newspaper that hasn't endorsed a Republican for president since Eisenhower. Wouldn't want public donor records to lead to any "false impressions," you know. One wonders why the Times thinks that allowing donations might reinforce "false" impressions of bias. If their staff is so bloody impartial, then what's to fear from campaign finance records?

By the way, the article states that in addition to the Times, donations are strictly forbidden at The Washington Post, ABC, CBS, CNN and NPR. Any guess as to how they would skew the numbers if the ban weren't in place? Maybe that seven-to-one ratio would be more like nine-to-one after all.


"on left-wing, anti-American bias at the BBC, "

Who told you that anti-republican means anti-American? Did you find that in any dictionary?

On the contrary, these days the republican party is gradually but surely slipping to anti-American positions. Thus, being anti-republican (and I emphasize, today's republican party) means being MORE pro-American. Therefore, BBC is very pro-American.

Fortunately, we have the completely unbiased FOX network, starring Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, to get us the straight-up honest unbiased truth, or we would be screwed!

I mean, these other commie-pinko lefty stations don't even consider Ann Coulter to be a great historian, like JMK assures us she is!

The Wisdom of Ann Coulter

The Media Research Center presented Coulter with its "Conservative Journalist of the Year" award. The Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute bestowed upon her its annual conservative leadership award "for her unfailing dedication to truth, freedom and conservative values and for being an exemplar, in word and deed, of what a true leader is."

Coulter is spinning her downfall as a new kind of terrorist-war McCarthyism. "People are hysterical about speech right now," she told The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz. "Everyone's comments are being taken out of context and wildly misinterpreted." At the risk of further de-contextualization, here are some of Coulter's past comments:

"[Clinton] masturbates in the sinks."---Rivera Live 8/2/99

"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"---Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01

The "backbone of the Democratic Party" is a "typical fat, implacable welfare recipient"---syndicated column 10/29/99

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC

"Women like Pamela Harriman and Patricia Duff are basically Anna Nicole Smith from the waist down. Let's just call it for what it is. They're whores."---Salon.com 11/16/00

Juan Gonzales is "Cuba's answer to Joey Buttafuoco," a "miscreant," "sperm-donor," and a "poor man's Hugh Hefner."---Rivera Live 5/1/00

On Princess Diana's death: "Her children knew she's sleeping with all these men. That just seems to me, it's the definition of 'not a good mother.' ... Is everyone just saying here that it's okay to ostentatiously have premarital sex in front of your children?"..."[Diana is] an ordinary and pathetic and confessional - I've never had bulimia! I've never had an affair! I've never had a divorce! So I don't think she's better than I am."---MSNBC 9/12/97

"I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote."---Hannity & Colmes, 8/17/99

"I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote."---Politically Incorrect, 2/26/01

"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."---George, 7/99

"We're now at the point that it's beyond whether or not this guy is a horny hick. I really think it's a question of his mental stability. He really could be a lunatic. I think it is a rational question for Americans to ask whether their president is insane."---Equal Time

"It's enough [to be impeached] for the president to be a pervert."---The Case Against Bill Clinton, Coulter's 1998 book.

"Clinton is in love with the erect penis."---This Evening with Judith Regan, Fox News Channel 2/6/00

"I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don't need any more." Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, "Well, before the New Deal...[The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start."---Politically Incorrect 5/7/97

"If they have the one innocent person who has ever to be put to death this century out of over 7,000, you probably will get a good movie deal out of it."---MSNBC 7/27/97

"If those kids had been carrying guns they would have gunned down this one [child] gunman. ... Don't pray. Learn to use guns."---Politically Incorrect, 12/18/97

"The presumption of innocence only means you don't go right to jail."---Hannity & Colmes 8/24/01

"I have to say I'm all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the 'hood to be flogged publicly."---MSNBC 3/22/97

"Originally, I was the only female with long blonde hair. Now, they all have long blonde hair."---CapitolHillBlue.com 6/6/00

"I am emboldened by my looks to say things Republican men wouldn't."---TV Guide 8/97

"Let's say I go out every night, I meet a guy and have sex with him. Good for me. I'm not married."---Rivera Live 6/7/00

"Anorexics never have boyfriends. ... That's one way to know you don't have anorexia, if you have a boyfriend."---Politically Incorrect 7/21/97

"I think [Whitewater]'s going to prevent the First Lady from running for Senate."---Rivera Live 3/12/99

"My track record is pretty good on predictions."---Rivera Live 12/8/98

"The thing I like about Bush is I think he hates liberals."---Washington Post 8/1/00

On Rep. Christopher Shays (d-CT) in deciding whether to run against him as a Libertarian candidate: "I really want to hurt him. I want him to feel pain."---Hartford Courant 6/25/99

"The swing voters---I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster. "---Beyond the News, Fox News Channel, 6/4/00

"My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism."---MSNBC 2/8/97

"You want to be careful not to become just a blowhard."---Washington Post 10/16/98

Whew...Bailey...I had to light up a cigarette after reading that -- and I don't even smoke! Thanks.

Uhhh, Barely, interesting those quotes from Coulter were, what do they have to do with the fact that 87% of the journalists polled by MSNBC gave to Democrats 108 of 125?

I mean, what's your point again?

Uhhh, Barely, interesting those quotes from Coulter were, what do they have to do with the fact that 87% of the journalists polled by MSNBC gave to Democrats 108 of 125?

I guess mean, what's your point again?

They have to do with the fact that Fox News is trash. Apparently, serious journalists from serious networks have good judgment and support democrats. It is that simple.

JMK. ignore BW.

As ever, his inability to deal with facts makes his meanderings irrelevant to any serious discussion.

Poor Blue Wind, forgotten but not gone.

JMK, ignore BW.

As ever, his inability to deal with facts makes his meanderings irrelevant to any serious discussion.

Poor Blue Wind, forgotten but not gone.

The problem is media bias BW, not Anne Coulter's dopey comments, nor Bill Arkin's odious ones as well. Ironically enough, AFTER Bill Arkin went on-air on NBC Nightly NEws and denigrated America's troops with his "Our Troops Need to Respect the American People, as Well" commentary, NBC Nightly News lost over 400,000 viewers the next month (Feb, 2007) and fell from the top spot among the major netowrks for the first time in over a decade.

The problem is also the constant editorializing in news stories. FoxNews does it, and so does EVERY other news outlet...the NY Times is by far the most egregious, although the LA Times is right up there. In the elctronic media, NBC is by far the worst.

My Dad was somewhat LESS Conservative than I and yet he reviled even JFK (he despised the entire "crooked Kennedy family") and saw Walter Cronkite for what he was "a damned commie," and that was BEFORE Cronkite went on air extolling the virtues of a "One World Government," before he retired.

At the time, I (a kid) thought Walter Cronkite was just a warm, fuzzy, old grandfather. I've since seen some of his old news reports on tape and he was exactly what my Dad thought of him.

As I said somewhere else....oh yeah, here it is; "But there's something very wrong when ALL three major networks are decidedly Left of center in a nation where Conservatives outnumber Liberals by better than 2 to 1 according to polls.

"That's why the outrage over FoxNews as a "Conservative outlet" is not only outrageous and ridiculous but galling, as well.

"I remain rightfully outraged that the MSM isn't far MORE balanced! Two of the three major networks (ABC, CBS & NBC) should be in Conservative hands today, Liberals should be able to keep 1 from among the LA Times, the WaPo and the NY Times - I'd suggest they keep NBC & the LA Times.

"The reason they haven't been run by Conservatives to date, is that most truly wealthy people are Liberal, as that ideology seeks to freeze the "free-for-all of commerce" in place, allowing those already rich to remain so, free from competition from newer ideas and hungrier competitors.

"Perhaps we do need a legislative answer to making the media more representative of America, even though I'm personally opposed to that, but what have we had proposed?

"A "Fairness Doctrine" that targets...."Right-wing Talk Radio."

We certainly NEED a better balance, that is far more real Conservative media outlets.

Sadly Libertarians and Conservatives must swim against a torrent of Liberal sewage. The less discerning and more easily manipulated in the population just go with the Liberal flow, those who can think become even more Libertarian and/or Conservative.

Mal, I know the facts seem to mean very little to some folks, BUT I figure, the reason Blue & Barely come here is that they're really drawn to Conservative ideas as much as they believe they revile them.

You rarely hear of Conservatives becoming Liberals, but it's natural that as people mature many become former Liberals, if not out-and-out Conservatives. Happens all the time.

It's a natural progression.

Some folks just mature later, at least that's how I see it.

"BUT I figure, the reason Blue & Barely come here is that they're really drawn to Conservative ideas"

LOL. That was real funny.

I have my moments.

"125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans"

That makes a total of 142 journalists, with 125 giving to Democrats "and liberal causes" and 17 to Reps.

17/142 is around 9:1.

Who's bad at math? Or were you confused because it's a word problem?

Oh, and JMK, if 125 give to Democrats, that makes 125 out of 125 giving to Democrats "and liberal causes", not 108.

Love that "and liberal causes" fuzz going on in there. It could be 8 giving to Democrats and 117 giving to environmental groups and homeless shelters for all we know. Because they ain't a tellin'. But you guys go ahead and have your little jerk-fest over it. Bet it got your weenies all hard. Those hard weenies probably confused your widdle brains and messed up your extraordinary math skills. That is a terribly difficult math problem to understand, after all.

How much do these journalists pay for haircuts?

I really find it amazing that, if these news stations are so incredibly liberal, they nevertheless put out far more balanced newscasts than FOX.

I mean, on the other networks to they have loud idiots like Slantity and O'Liely literally shouting down guests so that they can't speak? Do they put up a conservative puppet like the liberal puppet Colmes to lose every debate and look stupid?

You would think with their incredible bias they could at least do as well as the "Fair and Balanced, We Report, You Decide" FOX station when it comes to propoganda.

That makes a total of 142 journalists, with 125 giving to Democrats "and liberal causes" and 17 to Reps.

17/142 is around 9:1.

Who's bad at math?

You are, I guess.

First of all, your numbers are backwards. Second of all, you're using the wrong numbers. A 9:1 ratio would imply that donations to Democrats are nine times the donations to Republicans.

125 gave to Dems. 17 gave to Repubs. I don't know about you, but when I divide 125 by 17 I get 7 and change.

Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans....

87% of the journalists polled by MSNBC gave to Democrats 108 of 125?

That makes a total of 142 journalists, with 125 giving to Democrats "and liberal causes" and 17 to Reps.

17/142 is around 9:1. (anony-mouse)

Actually, and this is pretty funny, it’s YOUR math that’s wrong. 125 of 142 is...appx 87% AND ironically enough, 108 of 125 is also appx 87%

So, what’s your point, again? (JMK)

Who's bad at math? Or were you confused because it's a word problem?” (anony-mouse)

Uhhh, I think I just proved that to you above. I know you're now going to argue that 9:1 is very close to 87%, but while your 9 to 1 is indeed CLOSE to 87%, it IS 87% that is the actual percentage. In fact 125 of 142 is, I believe, 87.2% and 108 of 125 is appx. 87.6% (JMK)

”Oh, and JMK, if 125 give to Democrats, that makes 125 out of 125 giving to Democrats "and liberal causes", not 108.” (anony-mouse)

Well now you’ve crossed over the line into batshit craziness...again. MSNBC tracked 142 journalists who made POLITICAL donations, and 125 of them (87%) gave to Democrats. At any rate, your issue really isn’t with ME, it’s with MSNBC! And MSNBC is right, as they got their data straight from the FEC. “MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission.” (JMK)

”Love that "and liberal causes" fuzz going on in there. It could be 8 giving to Democrats and 117 giving to environmental groups and homeless shelters for all we know. Because they ain't a tellin'. But you guys go ahead and have your little jerk-fest over it. Bet it got your weenies all hard. Those hard weenies probably confused your widdle brains and messed up your extraordinary math skills. That is a terribly difficult math problem to understand, after all.” (anony-mouse)

Again, MSNBC NEVER said “Liberals causes,” they said, “MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made POLITICAL contributions.” THAT’S political contributions NOT “liberal causes.” Facts...stick to the FACTS. That’s not asking too much, is it? (JMK)

"...the journalists polled by MSNBC gave to Democrats 108 of 125?"

That's all folks.

No, wait, that's not all. The article said that it was "nearly nine out of ten" and you said it was close to 9 to 1. So then you say it is wrong.

Stupid much?

Now THAT'S all folks.

Barely, 125 of 142 is indeed 87%. That demonstrably shows the extent of the Liberal bias in today's media. There is no logical retort to that.

87% is not technically 9:1, in FACT 9:1 is actually bigger, or "worse," as 90 is bigger than 87, than 87%

I'll gladly agree that it seems that the media is 90% Liberal, but I'd also accept the more accurate 87% as well.

Once again your contention with " “MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made POLITICAL contributions," is NOT with ME, it's with the Liberal folks at MSNBC!

MSNBC claims that the media leans Left by appx 87%....I merely agree with that assessment backed up with FEC data.

Now you're just flailing around, trying to pretend you somehow got it right when you simply failed to understand what you read.

Did I disagree with the contention that the media is largely liberal? Nope. Sorry. I did point out that there's a line in that report that makes it impossible to reach the conclusions you and others leaped at.

Did the article say that the ratio was exactly 9 to 1? Nope. It said "nearly".

Did YOU say it was "CLOSE" to 9 to 1. Yup. And then you pretended that you were right and I was wrong, in some sort of mental gymnastic that is undoubtedly performed when your brain is fried from the prospect of masturbating in your cubicle over an alleged liberal bias.

Did BNJ, whom I was addressing in the first part of my posting, claim that the journalist's math was wrong and the number was roughly 7 to 1, not 9 to 1? Yes. Is it not nearly 9 to 1? Yes. Is BNJ wrong? No. It is actually 7.35 to one. But it is still NEARLY 9 to 1. We're dealing with a small sample here. It's easy to tick the odds over with that small a sample. Anyway, my math skills suck bigtime. I knew I'd get burned on that. Now watch as JMK ignores all the many ways in which he was wrong to score points on THAT one, which was between me and BNJ.

Did you, JMK, say that "the journalists polled by MSNBC gave to Democrats 108 of 125?" when the article says "125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans...."? Yup.

Are you stupid, JMK? Probably not. But you could just admit when you get something wrong and then you won't look like you're stupid. See, all I have to judge by is what you write here, and judging by what you've written here, I'm not seeing "perspicacious analyst possessing bodacious math skills" jumping off your resume. Now come back and tell me how 87% is nearly 9 to 1 but not exactly 9 to 1 and therefore saying that it is nearly 9 to 1 is wrong. And how 108 out of 125 is 87%. Except it is only NEARLY 87% and is actually more accurately rounded to 86%.

By the way, 125 out of 142 is 88%, but not exactly 88%. Just a teensy bit over 88%. So it isn't 88%, but it is CLOSE to 88%. Now that leaves just a teensy bit UNDER 12% to make 100%.

Go back to touching yourself inappropriately in your workplace, JMK.

BNJ, my bad on the math, but you have to admit that the sarcasm was pretty good. And also that it is NEARLY 9 to 1.

There's ONLY ONE line in the MSNBC that needs to be looked at, and it's this; “MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made POLITICAL contributions."

That's POLITICAL contributions, NOT "liberal causes."

And I am right that the acurate tally is 87%, which is not 9:1.

87% is the accurate percentage, so on that score, I guess I was right, if you're keeping score, but come on! You were wrong about H-1B Visas, Rico....shall we go on???

I dont get why right-wingers complain that the journalists are liberal. Journalists are intelligent people who are very well informed on the issues. Of course and they would be liberal. People who are well informed tend to be liberal. What is surprising about it? Similarly, the highest the education level, the more liberal people are (with some exceptions obviously).

Ironic that you say that Conservatives outnumber Liberals among people with College degrees.

Even in the last Presidential election that pattern held - among those with no HS diploma Kerry won, 50 - 49, among those with College degrees Bush won 52 - 46.

That doesn't seem to back up your assertion there BW.


Let me rephrase that first line, "Ironic that you say that, AS Conservatives outnumber Liberals among people with College degrees."

I never said that.

"...the highest the education level, the more liberal people are (with some exceptions obviously)." (BW)

All I showed was that among College grads, there seem to be more Conservatives, that's all, Blue.

And ironically enough, among those who didn't finish HS, there appear to be slightly more Liberals.

When you think about it, that makes perfect sense. People generally vote self-interest and people who have College degrees don't usually need many government programs, so they tend to vote for lower taxes and less intrusive government, while those who don't finish HS, tend to rely heavilly on government services and pay a lot less in taxes anyway, thus you'd expect that they'd tend to support bigger government (more "help") and higher taxes.

That's not a swipe, just looking at why people would tend to vote as they do.

Read Schumer's book, Positively American, in it, he not only says things like, "Democrats have been hopelessly Liberal, shamelessly Liberal and Liberal for far too long," in lamenting why the Dems lost the white "Middle Class" (he defines that as those earning between $30,000 and $75,000 per year) by over 22% and are in the process of losing the Hispanic Middle Class by similar numbers.

It's an interesting book. In it, he claims he's guided by a fictional "Middle Class" family, he calls the Bailey's and makes his decisions thinking about the interests of the Baileys.

That's an insight into why he and Rahm Emmanuel recruited so many Conservative Dems (Tester, Casey, Webb, Schuler, etc) for the last election.

Um, just to clear things up here, my browser automatically puts my name on my posts.

Anonymous isn't me JMK. You should know, since I beat you like a circus monkey at every turn, and he or she is only beating you like a dog.

Try not to be so paranoid.

I repeat. I never said what you wrote. Stop distorting the facts. There are higher degrees after college.

Here's your own quote, "Similarly, the higher the education level, the more liberal people are (with some exceptions obviously)."

You DIDN'T say, "At the HIGHEST level of education, people tend to be more Liberal," you said "the hihger the education level the more Liberal..."

Again, I merely showed the actual voting patterns in a recent election.

I wrote "highest". Do not distort the truth. Please.

Come on, that's a "Barely Hanging" argument if I ever heard one...first claiming that the media gave 9:1 to the GOP (I admit, I hadn't seen that until Barry noticed it), then taking issue with the FACT that 125 of 142 journalists who gave political donations to Democrats represnts 87% of those polled, claiming it was more like 9 to 1.

OK, maybe it IS "about 9 to 1," but it's ACTUALLY 87%.

You have to admit, that that's eerily similar to your insisting that "Under RICO, the government confiscates money, property, or any other asset it likes ON SUSPICION, not conviction," then posting an article that asserts (CORRECTLY, I might add) that RICO allows the Courts to "confiscate them (ASSETTS) AFTER conviction."

So, in reality, RICO doesn't allow the government to do ANYthing "based on suspicion."

RICO does allow the Courts to freeze those assetts it determines to be "ill-gotten," but only AFTER a Grand Jury indictment (NOT "suspicion").

And allows for the CONFISCATION (TAKING) of those assetts determined by the courts to be "ill-gotten" ONLY upon conviction (again, NOT "suspicion").

Both arguments seem very, very similar, in both their flaws and the poor way in which they were framed.

Yeah, you "beat me like a dog" alright, IF by "beaten like a dog" you mean that you took a bunch of gross factual errors, wove them into a poorly framed argument and then steadfastly refused to acknowledge your factual errors in the face of overwhelming proofs.

Yes, about now my eyes are bleeding from tediously typing explanations as to why those assertions of yours (oh yeah, and anony-mouse's) are so wrong!

How can I distort the truth, when you deny what you yourself wrote; "...the highest the education level, the more liberal people are," if you're NOW claiming you MEANT, "...(at) the highest education level, people are more liberal," then say THAT...say that you miswrote the initial statement. It happens.

Your initial phrase as written only makes sense as; "...the higher the education level, the more liberal people are..." and that statement is, as you well know, demonstrably wrong.

I wrote the highest, as I meant it. It was meant as "...(at) the highest education level, people are more liberal,"

Now, after this correction, please retract all your long writings above. Thanks :)

BW, that was very poorly written in your initial post and most journalists simply have College degrees, as no advanced degree is required for that endeavor.

It also fails to explain why America's media is so ideologically out of touch with the American people.

While the election results of those with advanced degrees fluctuates widely between elections, there are other parameters that don't.

Among F/T workers Republicans usually lead 55 to 44.

Among those who earn over $50K/year the GOP usually leads by 58 - 41.

Among those who earn over $100K Republicans usually lead by 62 - 38.

Wouldn't you think those who earn the most are generally among the "smartest," or at least "savviest" people?

They're certainly those with skills that are usually the most difficult to master and the most in demand.

LOL! JMK, just admit that the word confiscate only mean to take possession of, by authority. It does not mean to permanently transfer ownership.

For instance, we have all seen signs that say "this or that type of item will be confiscated" or "park here and your car will be confiscated" and this never implies that your property has been permanently transferred to the police. It just means they are going to take it from you, or confiscate it.

You see, this is how I beat you like a circus monkey, Chimp Jr.

Every single person who reads this board and has access to common sense or a dictionary, is going to conclude that you are just wrong, and trying to escape from being just flat wrong through semantics. It's a grade school level trick that most adults easily see through, though I could see firemen having problems in this more mental area of life.

You lost the argument, so you are trying to redefine the terms. But you have failed.

Now, as for your other nice try, indictment is still suspicion. You see, indictment isn't conviction. You indict people when you think they might have done something, not when you know they are guilty. So, you see, had I said that the government TAKES property WITHOUT suspicion, you might have a fighting chance here.

When the government suspects you have commited a crime, and a grand jury agrees with that suspicion, that is called INDICTMENT.

When they KNOW or have PROVEN you have committed a crime, that is CONVICTION.

Are you getting this?

Probably not, LOL!

JMK has a selective perception of reality. He only presents facts that support such selective perception. The college degree issue is such an example. Instead of presenting all facts, he chose to select only a piece that supports what he believes should be real (although in reality it is not) :)

Man, the education of Barely is a very tedious affair.

CONFISCATE means to TAKE, as in "to take possession/ownership of (and YES, permanently).

The "freezing of ill-gotten assetts" is NOT "CONFISCATION."

Moreover, THAT is not your argument.

Remember, YOU posted the article that acknowledged (CORRECTLY, I might add) that "RICO gave the government...the power to freeze a defendant’s assets at the time of indictment (NOT suspicion, as you wrongly asserted) and CONFISCATE (or TAKE ownership/possession) of them (ASSETTS) AFTER conviction." (again, NOT "based on suspicion," as you wrongly asserted, when you said, "RICO allows government to confiscate property based only on suspicion."

And now you claim NOT to understand the difference between an "indictment" and "suspicion."

Well, here it is, SUSPICION allows law enforcement to pull you over as you weave along a two lane highway, and that SUSPICION allows them to stop you, demand to see your drivers license, registration and insurance card AND request that you take a breathalizer test. IF you refuse to take that breahalizer and the officer SUSPECTS that you are DUI, he can and WILL arrest you and bring you in based on SUSPICION.

When a Grand Jury INDICTS someone, they are agreeing that the DA has ENOUGH EVIDENCE for that case to go to trial. An indictment is a legal proceeding that establishes that there IS evidence against the person CHARGED with a crime.

Sadly for you, an INDICTMENT is NOT "the same as" SUSPICION.

Moreover, the government DIDN'T invent the right to "freeze ill-gotten assetts" with RICO, that was always part of our Civil Law. RICO merely applied that Civil parameter to criminal cases.

In a Civil Case where Amir Punjab swindles Barely Hanging out of his house, the Civil Court would "freeze the ill-gotten assetts" (your house and contents) so that Amir Punjab wouldn't be able to sell them off, or transfer the title to another person to avoid Civil Forfeiture and being forced to return those things to their rightful owner (in that case, you).

So, RICO DID NOT invent any "new rights or powers" for government, it merely allowed the parameters already used in Civil litigations be used in criminal ones.

So, YES, it is RIGHT and JUSt that government have the right to "freeze ill-gotten assetts," upon INDICTMENT (NOT mere SUSPICION) and it's equally RIGHT and JUST that those assetts be CONFISCATED (the government TAKING possession or ownership) AFTER CONVICTION (NOT mere suspicion.

Moreover, you seem to be arguing a 1980s argument against RICO (that it is over-used and easy to win judgments on) when that is no longer the case.

Since you probably don't keep up with such things, not many do, "During the 1990's, the federal courts, guided by the United States Supreme Court, engaged in a concerted effort to limit the scope of RICO in the civil context. As a result of this effort, civil litigants must jump many hurdles and avoid many pitfalls before they can expect the financial windfall available under RICO...


Ironically enough RICO was written into law in the 1970s by a Democratic Congress and approved by overwhelmingly Liberal courts, INCLUDING the notoriously heinous Burger Court...AND it was reined in by the 1990s more Conservative Rhenquist Court.

Hey! Surprisingly much like the fact that H-1B Visa Limits were RIGHTLY raised TWICE between 1993 and 2000 (during which they exploded from 50,000 to around 1 MILLION) and those limits were WRONGLY returned to their original/default limits under the current administration.

I must insist that you mis-spoke, or mis-wrote BW, as your statement "...the highest the education level, the more liberal people are," only makes sense as; "...the HIGHER the education level, the more liberal people are..." and that statement is, as you well know, demonstrably wrong. I think that's pretty clear.

I've addressed you twice now and asked you direct and civil questions (perhaps you can't answer them, and that's OK, they're not easy, just direct), such as "Given that those earning over $50K/year swing heavilly Republican and those earning over $100K/yr swing even more decidedly Republican, wouldn't you agree that those who earn the most are generally among the "smartest," or at least "savviest" people? Doesn't their voting pattern say something about the anti-middle class policies that Liberal Democrats espouse?

Those are pretty fair questions...

If you see what I wrote above, I corrected my statement and explained what I meant. Now that you know exactly what I meant, can you respond? Is what I meant correct or false?

I thank you for that correction BW, but that statement "...(at) the highest education level, people are more liberal," is not consistently true.

Those with advanced degrees have tended to vote more independently, for instance, I believe one poll I recall showed that among those with advanced degrees, Ross Perot would've won in 1992, they voted heavilly for Reagan in 1984, etc.

I don't think I'd call that necessarily "more Liberal," just "more independent."

On the other hand, as Schumer acknowledged and polls consistently show, "the Democrats have been losing the white middle class (defined by Schumer as those earning between $30K & $75K per year) by over 22%." Polls consistently show that those earning over $50,000/year vote heavilly Republican and those earning over $100,000/year vote even more heavilly Republican.

I think that's due, in large part, to the misguided tax policies the Liberal Democrats espouse, ones that let "truly rich" people like Teresa Heinz-Kerry, Tom Keane Jr., and others like them, pay only 5% of their annual earnings in taxes, while the working schlub earning $90,000/year pays about 50% of his/her earnings in taxes each year?

You're not insinuating that those people aren't "smart," or that they're "voting AGAINST their own economic interests" in voting that way, are you?

If you are, please explain.

All I said was that the vast majority of voters who vote republican vote against their own interests and I stand by that statement.

Here's my question to that view, Blue, "Do you think those folks earning over $50,000/year are voting against their own interests, and if so, why?

I tend to think Chuck Schumer is RIGHT to focus his agernda on the American Middle Class.

No Party can without that group, which comprises about 70+% of the electorate.

There's no reason to pander to illegal aliens, as MOST of them don't even WANT to become Americans.

Likewise, there's no reason to pander to the chronically poor either, as most of those folks (1) DON'T vote and (2) being predominantly comprised of reckless and irresponsible people, they don't follow any of the issues anyway.

No, the Middle Class is where the votes are.

Now I've gotten student loans and small business loans and yes, they are indeed "government programs," so much as the lowered interest rates are subsidized, BUT I, like most Middle Class people haven't ever really personalized that into something like, "Wow! I really owe our government big time," not at all! Besides, BOTH major Parties have supported those things.

In short, while I appreciate government's increasing the scope of opportunities by subsidizing lower interest rates on student and small business loans, I KNOW they do that ONLY because they KNOW that these new businesses will pay more in taxes and college educated people tend to earn more and thus pay more in taxes.

Once I began earning decent money, I, like the majority of people, then wanted governemnt OUT of my pockets.

Today, I tend to vote for the candidate who supports LIMITED GOVERNMENT, LESS governmental SPENDING and LOWER TAX RATES, because I perceive ALL those things to be in MY best interests.

If a Democrat ran on a platform of (1) eliminating the Income Tax and replacing it with the Fair Tax, which would tax consumption after the first $30K spent, replacing the Income Tax, FICA, the AMT, the Corporate Income Tax, the Cap Gains Tax, etc., (2) a tough on crime (PUNISHMENT over REHAB) approach and (3) eliminating any/all race/gender-based preferences and restoring equality before the law - "equal opportunity for all, special privilege for none," I'd almost certainly vote for that candidate. So long as they also supported the existing WoT, both domestic and military, as well.

Sadly, the Democrats have allowed the Republicans to coopt that agenda, at least on the national stage and that's been to their detriment.

In short, I'm pretty certain you don't have much chance of convincing many working people that higher tax rates, more government spending (especially social spending) and viewing violent thugs as "victims of society," are "in their best interests.

That's pretty much the primary problem today's Liberal Democrats face.

Anyone who makes less than $200K per year and votes republican votes against his/her interests. In addition, anyone in the 20% of Americans w/o health insurance who votes republican votes against their interests big-time. And trust, most of the republican voters belong in these 2 categories.

Again, you really can't defend that position, Blue.

In reality, ANYONE earning over $35,000/year gets virtually NO benefit from government programs whatsoever. They're "too rich" for food stamps, etc., etc.

Moreover, they ARE recklessly and irreparably harmed by the corrosive Liberal view of criminals as "victims of society," (no one suffers more from random violent crime/street crime than those earning less than $50K/yr) and many, many others are harmed by race/gender preferences that are supported by Liberals.

Worse YET, ALL working people are harmed by Liberal Democratic tax policies.

A family of four, earning, say, $50,000/year pays between 42% and 48% in payroll (state & federal) and FICA taxes, depending upon where they live (the tax bite is hihgest in places like NYC, where they pay federal state AND city taxes).

When tax rates rise, most of those earning less than $80,000/year CAN'T defer much, if any, of their income, while those who earn over $200,000 usually can defer a significant portion of their income, diverting it into 401-Ks, 457s, Roth-IRAs, etc., that defer that money tax free (if taken after 59.5 yrs) to avoid the sting of those tax hikes.

Problem #1 for Democrats is that NO ONE who works for a living, no matter how much they earn, is "rich."


Well, because INCOME is the poorest wealth-generating mechanism there is.

Truly "RICH" people, like the Trump's, the Gates', the Bloomberg's, the Rockefeller's, Heinz-Kerry's, etc. DO NOT rely upon income for their wealth.

What that means is that Democratic tax policies that claim to "soak the rich," are actually deliberately aimed directly at those earning LESS than $100,000/year!

That's a fact.

They KNOW that those with higher incomes ($200K/year and up) will simply defer more of their incomes to shield it from the tax bite, and they also KNOW that LOWER income workers CAN'T do that...and there are far more lower income workers - so THAT'S where the money IS!

In point of fact, your statement, "Anyone who makes less than $200K per year and votes republican votes against his/her interests," is demonstrably false, while the statement, "Anyone who earns OVER $50,000/year and votes democratic (at least on the national level - House, Senate & President) IS indeed voting against their own economic interests, as they're the ones getting soaked with the tax hikes that thier more affluent neighbors can avoid by simply deferring their income in various tax deferred vehicles," is very much true.

And Blue, it's 15%...FIFTEEN percent of Americans aren't covered by employer health insurance, and most of those working p/t and per diem.

I've come around a bit on this - employers SHOULD NOT be paying for healhcare costs. It puts America's businesses in an non-competitive position in relation to the rest of the world's businesses.

We probably should and soon will have a cheap (that means cost-effective) "bare bones" universal health care program, while maintaining the current network of private health insurers for those willing and able to pay for better quality healthcare without the government's restrictions and rationing.

There's ONLY ONE line in the MSNBC that needs to be looked at

Because, of course, when you make an argument, you ignore all the other lines that might make you look like a twit. Like the one that said:
"Democrats and liberal causes."

Because that would be too honest, and there's nothing a Republican hates more than giving something an honest reading.

That line I mentioned clearly states "gave to Democrats," NOT "liberal causes."

Case closed.

The journalists polled GAVE to Democrats NOT "liberal causes."

There's no argument. The MSNBC article is very clear. 87% of the journalists polled gave to various Democrats. 11% gave to Republicans and 2% gave to both Democrats and Republicans.

The "liberal causes" line is a canard...that ONE line in the article made that very clear.

"Of 143 journalists 125 journalists gave (political CONTRIBUTIONS) to Democrats...ONLY 16 gave to Republicans and TWO gave to both Parties."


They claimed to get their information from the FEC, which, I don't believe, tracks donations to say, the ACLU, or the NRA, but to political candidates and their PACs.

I don't believe it's possible for anyone to seriously argue that the MSM isn't overwhelmingly Liberal...not against the mountain of evidence of a profound Liberal bias in the MSM over the past half century....is it?

I'd love to hear an argument like that, with some kind of documentation...it'd be interesting, to say the least.

Amusing, as well.

Post a comment