The Republican Thread

[StrangeSox]

1) have you actually watched those shows? The "message" of O'Reilly and Beck are not the same. You've lumped them together for no other reason than because they're under the umbrella of Fox News.

 

I don't think I mentioned O'Reilly. It's a working theory, not a "everything is 100% this way" statement.

 

2) As discussed with Rex, how does this differ from the "liberal" talking heads like Olbermann or Maddow? Or, 2 of the 5 "sources" for news from liberals, the daily show and the colbert report. Apparently the "liberal" message sells just fine in that arena.

 

I was attempting to explain why conservative talk shows fair much better than liberal ones. There are a handful of liberal examples and uncountable conservative ones. Yes, snark, irony and condescension does sell well to young liberals (Daily Show/Colbert Report), but I wouldn't put them in the same category as political talk radio/talk TV.

 

And I think NPR doesn't even belong in this discussion. They pick so many random bits of news to report that it's hardly an up-to-date look on the days news, which is what most of the shows we're talking about provide (in addition to the fact that it's radio v. tv)

 

They give thorough "headlines" summaries throughout their news broadcasts. Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. do not provide up-to-date looks on the days' news, they provide editorial outlets to promote chosen interests. They are distinctly not actual news sources but are relied on as such by many of their listeners.

 

Funny too how CNN is considered "neutral" in these discussions, even though they provide the exact same format. Entertaining host, viewpoints from one side or the other, opinion piece by host, commercial. It's the same exact process, only with a different emphasis depending on the issue.

 

CNN is a garbage network. They follow the standard Cable News idea of "two idiots shouting at each other" = balance. They report the same headlines as everyone else with minimal depth.

 

It does not compare to how Fox News operates. That network is dominated by opinion shows. Their few news shows then emphasize the same issues their opinion hosts are talking about.

 

That's irrelevant to why liberalism fails in the talk media markets for the most part, though. The explanation that conservatism is just such a stronger ideology in this country doesn't hold up. The gap in talk media representation is significantly larger than the gaps in the population.

[StrangeSox]

Now wait a second...are those numbers being counted the same way? You said weekly audience...that's typically not how the numbers are given for TV programs...the ratings for TV programs are typically given as numbers watching a show per day.

 

Is that 20 million people listening simultaneously, or is that 20 million people who tune in for some indeterminate length of time while on the 10 minute drive in to the office if ESPN radio is on commercial like this particular poster does?

 

 

TV show numbers can be for small portions of a program as well.

[Balta1701]

TV show numbers can be for small portions of a program as well.

They "Can" be but I think I'm right here and Rex is comparing apples and oranges by saying that NPR's 20 million audience is larger than O'Reilly's 1.5 million audience.

[Rex Kickass]

Now wait a second...are those numbers being counted the same way? You said weekly audience...that's typically not how the numbers are given for TV programs...the ratings for TV programs are typically given as numbers watching a show per day.

 

Is that 20 million people listening simultaneously, or is that 20 million people who tune in for some indeterminate length of time while on the 10 minute drive in to the office if ESPN radio is on commercial like this particular poster does?

 

Right, its difficult to compare apples to apples with TV and radio. Especially public radio because audience estimates are done much differently (they usually aren't factored into publicly released arbitron data.) Usually radio is rated per quarter hour (5 minutes of listening within 15 minute time frames).

 

So I should take this back, because there is no real way to make this comparison. The average Fox News prime time show will get 2 to 3 million viewers a night IIRC. But I can't really find a good way to compare apples to apples here.

[southsider2k5]

The conservative message as sold by Limbaugh, Hannity, Malkin, Coulter, etc. is not diverse. The Republican party typically can stay 'on message' and votes more cohesively than Democrats.

 

On talk radio and talking head TV, opinions and positions are dictated, not discussed. It is more cohesive to an authoritarian philosophy than to "free thought" or progressive philosophy. The opinions expressed by Limbaugh, Hannity et al are right-wing authoritarian in nature. Compare this to some show on NPR that may blather on and on in a round-table feel-good discussion of ideas.

 

For whatever reason, the conservative message sells well via the "shout things at you and tell it the way it is over the airwaves" model. While you do get intelligent conversations from people like the late William Buckley, actual conversations and discussions (not having someone parrot what you believe or bring someone on to berate them) are the exception and not the norm. The inability of liberal talk radio to catch on may be somewhat self-fulfilling, since the people who would typically be the target audience of liberal talk radio is also going to buy into the idea of "intellectual liberal" and will not value a talk radio host as much as an NPR round table.

 

The above may or may not make sense. I'm a bit sleep-deprived right now.

 

Also libertarians are libertarians, not conservatives, at least imo. I think they'd describe themselves as "classical liberals" more so than associate with modern conservative movements.

 

Sounds a lot like NPR to me.

[lostfan]

I don't think that is true at all. The centrist repubs are the ones who wanted limited interference in all aspects of their lives. They are excited by this movement because it not only focuses on taxes, but also spending and rules. The real center of the party is much more hands-off. The Democrats are threatened by this which is why they have mobilized so quickly to label the entire movement as racist and uneducated, which you are seeing on this very board. They are painting a vocal minority as much more than it really is. It would be akin to painting guys like Al Sharpton and the guy who took Discovery hostage as the center of the Democratic party.

This happens regularly. lol. I spent about 30 seconds in a couple of Fox News comment sections. It was funny, and sad. I thought Salon readers were b****y, geez.

[lostfan]

Bulls***. The conservative party is just as diverse, but you all like to define conservatives as one crazy religious racist homophobic rich (though sometimes hillbilly) group. Again, you have fiscal conservatives, libertarians, tea partiers, the hardcore right, etc - all different groups with diverse viewpoints.

 

And while "liberals" might be more diverse, I dunno that it's THAT much more. I'll defer to Balta to find a study on that. But either way, it's not like Republicans are 99.9% white males over 40.

No conservatives are not a bunch of crazy dumb racist rednecks (you don't have to keep repeating this btw, not everybody thinks that and personally if I did I wouldn't bother talking to any conservatives) but it's absolutely true that demographics for liberals are more diverse than conservatives. This is not a zero-sum thing we're talking about here, liberals having more women, minorities, and religions isn't saying that conservatives are all a bunch of s***-kicking, sister-f***ing Bible thumping racists. Of course there are black conservatives, Hispanic conservatives, non-Christians, a vast majority of whites who aren't racist, and so on. I guess the internet gives off certain perceptions, but it shouldn't really need to be affirmed.

[StrangeSox]

Sounds a lot like NPR to me.

 

Yeah but not really though. at all.

[EvilMonkey]

I hesitate to post this for fear of giving all the liberals some ideas, but if this takes hold there, the world is doomed.

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/39265847

 

The UK's tax collection agency is putting forth a proposal that all employers send employee paychecks to the government, after which the government would deduct what it deems as the appropriate tax and pay the employees by bank transfer.

 

Why don't they just tell us what to eat, when to go to bed and what clothes to wear while they are at it?

[NorthSideSox72]

I hesitate to post this for fear of giving all the liberals some ideas, but if this takes hold there, the world is doomed.

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/39265847

 

 

 

Why don't they just tell us what to eat, when to go to bed and what clothes to wear while they are at it?

I'm guessing they are doing it to prevent some scofflaws, and to get receipts in quicker to their treasury. But I agree it seems highly intrusive and bad in grand scheme of things.

 

[Balta1701]

I'm guessing they are doing it to prevent some scofflaws, and to get receipts in quicker to their treasury. But I agree it seems highly intrusive and bad in grand scheme of things.

Well, there's one other potential benefit here...the federal goverment in this country has all the resources to tell a good chunk of the non-complicated tax returns exactly how much they owe. The only changes come when claiming changing exemptions for things like tax-writeoffs. For those people...there's no reason why they need to fill out a private tax return, or do things like buy tax software or visit H&R block, etc. There's a money-saver there as well.

 

I see where the "ick" factor comes from and I want to acknowledge it...but I do want to ask a Devil's advocate question...how much more information would a federal government get about a person if their income was sent directly to the government rather than having a tax return prepared by the individual? I'm trying to think of anything that the government would actually learn that it doesn't already have access to. Can someone give me an example?

[EvilMonkey]

Well, there's one other potential benefit here...the federal goverment in this country has all the resources to tell a good chunk of the non-complicated tax returns exactly how much they owe. The only changes come when claiming changing exemptions for things like tax-writeoffs. For those people...there's no reason why they need to fill out a private tax return, or do things like buy tax software or visit H&R block, etc. There's a money-saver there as well.

 

I see where the "ick" factor comes from and I want to acknowledge it...but I do want to ask a Devil's advocate question...how much more information would a federal government get about a person if their income was sent directly to the government rather than having a tax return prepared by the individual? I'm trying to think of anything that the government would actually learn that it doesn't already have access to. Can someone give me an example?

You miss the big point, probably on purpose. it isn't their money to send back to me. It is MY money. Once implemented, there is nothing to stop them from keeping whatever they want to out of it. I can't believe you would even think to defend this.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well, there's one other potential benefit here...the federal goverment in this country has all the resources to tell a good chunk of the non-complicated tax returns exactly how much they owe. The only changes come when claiming changing exemptions for things like tax-writeoffs. For those people...there's no reason why they need to fill out a private tax return, or do things like buy tax software or visit H&R block, etc. There's a money-saver there as well.

 

I see where the "ick" factor comes from and I want to acknowledge it...but I do want to ask a Devil's advocate question...how much more information would a federal government get about a person if their income was sent directly to the government rather than having a tax return prepared by the individual? I'm trying to think of anything that the government would actually learn that it doesn't already have access to. Can someone give me an example?

That is only one of many "ick" factors in doing this.

 

How about the fact that they can arbitrarily decide how much to take out? Yes, they are stuck with the effective rates, but, how do they decide how much to take out of each check? If they see changes in income, they can take more out, but who controls how much and when?

 

Then there is the fact that you are putting in a massive delay potential to people's money. If even a day, that is horrible for a lot of people. What if a system along the line fails? Or there is a delay?

 

Then there is the pure, simple, argument of... do we really want the government taking our money? And I don't mean the proper tax amounts - I mean OUR money. The money they DON'T get to have. Why should they even touch it?

 

I'm sure others can add even more reasons why this is a bad idea.

 

[Balta1701]

Just to note...neither of you have yet given me an example of exactly what I asked for...some additional bit of information the government could get out of you by doing this. I'm not going to challenge NSS's points that there would be some serious "bugs" to work out and it's probably not worth the effort, I simply want to make the point that if you're going to be creeped out by this...there'd be every reason to be creeped out by filing an income tax fomr.

[EvilMonkey]

Just to note...neither of you have yet given me an example of exactly what I asked for...some additional bit of information the government could get out of you by doing this. I'm not going to challenge NSS's points that there would be some serious "bugs" to work out and it's probably not worth the effort, I simply want to make the point that if you're going to be creeped out by this...there'd be every reason to be creeped out by filing an income tax fomr.

I am creeped out by them getting my money, not by any additional bit of info they get, so your question is useless.

[NorthSideSox72]

Just to note...neither of you have yet given me an example of exactly what I asked for...some additional bit of information the government could get out of you by doing this. I'm not going to challenge NSS's points that there would be some serious "bugs" to work out and it's probably not worth the effort, I simply want to make the point that if you're going to be creeped out by this...there'd be every reason to be creeped out by filing an income tax fomr.

There is no additional data mining to be done, I don't believe, so I fail to see the problem with that. I have other, seperate issues.

 

[Controlled Chaos]

Senator Brady is at my work right now. Should I pass on any words of wisdom?

[EvilMonkey]

Senator Brady is at my work right now. Should I pass on any words of wisdom?

Is he the Giant Douche or the Sh*t Sandwich? We are sort of mirroring South Park ATM.

Edited September 22, 2010 by Alpha Dog

[southsider2k5]

Is he the Giant Douche or the Sh*t Sandwich? We are sort of mirroring South Park ATM.

 

Indiana is calling...

[EvilMonkey]

Indiana is calling...

I worked there while in high school, at Stardust Bowl in Dyer. My best bud lived there as well so I spent a lot of time there. But not gonna move there. I finally have a job, with less than 10 minutes commute. Moving even to Dyer would take me an hour or more again!

[NorthSideSox72]

Is he the Giant Douche or the Sh*t Sandwich? We are sort of mirroring South Park ATM.

This Gov election in IL looks to be as bad as last time, and that was atrocious (Blago v Baar-Topinka). I seriously could not stomach voting for either of those bufoons, I ended up voting Green. Apparently a lot of other people had the same gag reflex, because the Greens (for the first time ever in IL) got enough votes to become a qualifying party, to receive more money in the next election. I may have to go that route again.

 

[mr_genius]

Speaking of the IL gov race, here are some polling numbers

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...quinn-1361.html

 

Brady would appear to be opening a wide lead. It'll be interesting to see if he does indeed win, will he cut the state budget as much as he has proposed?

[Balta1701]

Brady would appear to be opening a wide lead. It'll be interesting to see if he does indeed win, will he cut the state budget as much as he has proposed?

What you're saying is...if I do get offered that job at SIU...make sure I get everything about money in writing. Gotcha.

 

Still can't be worse than california.

[southsider2k5]

What you're saying is...if I do get offered that job at SIU...make sure I get everything about money in writing. Gotcha.

 

Still can't be worse than california.

 

That might be the one place that Illinois doesn't trail in terms of budget disaster.

[EvilMonkey]

I heard this morning that Illinois Speaker Michael Madigan actually has a 'challenger' in his district, a Republican with the name of John Patrick Ryan. But the problem is that noone in the Illinois Republican Party knows who that is, and he hasn't established a campaign office or held any fundraisers or events. Could he be a fake candidate slated to run so that Madigan doesn't really have to campaign? His district is pretty safe for him, so unless some phenom came out of the woodwork, he wouldn't have anythign to worry about, so wonder what is going on there. Oh, GOP State Chair Pat Brady is holding a fundraiser for him so hopefully he can find out!

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/55166505/Patri...nRyanFundraiser