I agree, corporations are not going to bite the hand that feeds.

But they are racking up environmental, and human rights violations continually.

I can't see how liberals could be responsible.

Are liberals creating the sweat shops in China that sell clothes to Walmart.
Are liberals responsible for oil spills like deep water horizon?

It took me three month to find socks that I felt ok with buying.
They were from an American company, that pays decent wages, and sources their
materials responsibly.

I am a true liberal.
I have compassion for people and the world.

Corporations do not have compassion, they have bottom lines.

__________________

When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
Jimi Hendrix

Right. That's why big businesses lean to the right. The right has no problem with big, intrusive government. In fact, it might be their favorite kind. These people are right-wing. They are not conservative.

Nor has the left as long as that intrusion favors them. So what else is new? Or are you saying that the left welcomes govt intervention even when it goes against what they want?

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

Progressive programs have their own litany of travesties and horrors that they visit upon us.

Many folks like to see their side as virtuous and their opponents as demonic.

Your story about socks describes how you went about making your market decision. My criteria differs.

I'm pretty sure that a reasoned, non-passionate analysis would show that both of our perspectives have strengths and weaknesses.

Big businesses (who I dislike because of their arrogance), big government, big unions, big educational agendas, big media, etc.

I dislike all of it. May be necessary but to sum it up as liberal=good and right-wing=bad. I don't think it works that way.

PS - Compassion is a very popular 'buzz word'. Personally I'd like to provide the means whereby people have the opportunity to improve if they wish to. That's why I pursue 'wealth-creation.' This concept is profoundly foreign to progressives. I'm not going to argue that republicans are much better but I'm not looking to either for what I want.

...

I'm not saying that. I agree with you on this one. The distinction I'm making is between "conservative" and "right-wing." John Ashcroft, for example, is right-wing. He is not conservative. Likewise with Dick Cheney. He's no conservative.

I'm not sure there are liberals or conservatives in congress, for that matter. Most of them seem to say what they say they are but well....

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

I don't know who in the mainstream is a conservative.

...

Remember the black guy's interview with the girl in Ghostbusters? When asked if he believed in the theory of atlantis, loch ness monster, etc, etc, his reply was "If there is a steady paycheck, I'll believe whatever you say." or words to that effect.

If I am running for office, I am Conservative, Liberal or whatever it is that I think gives me the best chance of getting elected or re-elected. If the state became 90% Martian, you bet I'll be pro-Martian or whatever their belief is too if I am seeking re-election.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

Facts are what they are. Your words were what they were. I figured that pointing it out would be enough said. I was wrong. Here are some more words for you:

MSNBC intentionally placed its line-up and editorial policy to segregate and capitalize on a particular demographic just as FoxNews has done with great success. FoxNews recognized that there was about 30% of the viewing audience that has expectations unmet by the media. They successfully targeted the segment and have very loyal followers.

MSNBC didn't recognize that the demographic they were pursuing was already largely captive by the major broadcast channels. As a result, they have floundered mightily for their leftist audience, small as it is. No matter whom they put in the line-up I doubt they will attract many viewers because there are so many channels, including Algores, fishing in the same pond with the same bait.

It is similar to the radio segmentation. Righwingers recognized that most radio commentators were moderately left and that NPR is firmly to the left. They targeted an unacknowledged audience, right wing trades and craftsmen and professionals. In contrast, Pacifica and the Algore channel can't get traction against the NPR behemoth.

That you seem unable to recognize the segmentations for what they are reveals the magnitude of your bias. That's not wrong or evil. It's just a characteristic. Like hair color.

I'm trying to figure out what I said that made you conclude that I am unable to recognize the segmentations for what they are. I thought that basic point was self-evident, even though I am not sure I agree with all of the details in your post. For example, I was not aware that the reason MSNBC has not been more successful was because the demographic they were pursuing was already captive by the major broadcast channels. Given the allegiance those channels previously had to George Bush, I was not aware that they were still considered leftist. I quit watching them when we got Directv, so I can't speak from experience on that.

I have always wondered why Limbaugh, Fox, and others thrive, while Air America, MSNBC, and others don't. I figured that there is something about right-wing talk that is more entertaining than left-wing talk, although I don't know why that would be.

I'm sorry that you don't like me, but I am entertained by your wordsmithing. I particularly liked "the magnitude of your bias" part. That's a great line. My bias is magnificent, towering over all the other biases here. Great stuff.

Honus, my friend

(if that is inappropriate or a distasteful salutation, please let me know)

You have expressed this idea a couple of times. Some folks here (I said some) do not know how you have come to that conclusion.

That's OK. We can have any opinion we want.

But since you posit that the major broadcast networks were in Bush's "pocket", so to speak, could you give me some evidence and not just an assertion.

It's not an attack but my memory goes back to Nixon (I was too young during Eisenhower to remember anything useful) I cannot remember a republican president who was loved by the press.

Nixon -- hated

Ford -- years later Chevy Chase acknowledged that he ridiculed Ford because he wanted Carter to win

Reagan -- I'll reference Howard Kurt in the Washington Post He had a very contentious relationship with the press.

Bush (sr) -- He was probably the least disliked of the bunch

Bush (jr) -- I'll just pick this one from the NY Times Bushes' Wars Against Media

I think you'll have a hard time defending your view on Bush(jr) being a darling of the media.

Now if you said the national chamber of commerce, many nation-wide evangelical organizations, etc you'd get no argument from me.

But I don't see the NY Times, Washington Post, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, LA Times, etc having pictures of ole Georgie sitting on their desks.

That's true at MSNBC, but some of the others on your list acted as Bush's stenographers for at least a few years after 9/11. The Washington Post and New York Times were particularly shameless in their cheerleading for W. Why the right always bashes them is beyond me. It was as if they were on Bush's payroll, until he went out of fashion a short time after they helped get him re-elected. Then they started bashing him.

I don't have time now, but maybe I can find some links later on.

Nixon -- hated

I believe the feeling was mutual, if not encouraged to be adversary.

Ford -- years later Chevy Chase acknowledged that he ridiculed Ford because he wanted Carter to win

What news organization did Chevy work for . . . oh right, Weekend Update . . .

Reagan -- I'll reference Howard Kurt in the Washington Post He had a very contentious relationship with the press.

It may be more precise to acknowledge that Reagan got a pass when it came to press coverage of his support of right wing totalitarian governments in Central and South America; not to mention his cozy relationship with a certain President of Iraq with the initials SH, and it continues to this day.

It's really simple. If you write articles and your target audience is women, it might be easier for you to find work at a magazine that caters to women. At that time, he might have been popular. As such, if you want to write articles with negative content about him, it might not sell as well. Either you write to your audience's taste, or you are out of a job. It is that simple.

Who the hell do you think you are to expect that a journalist do otherwise? If Obama hired me or my wife, you can bet we'd be saying he was a saint that can walk on water. When our link is no longer necessary and we are hired by Obama's opponent, why do you think we'd say Obama was good? We don't bite the hand that feeds us, do we? As such, why do you think we can expect it of others? When hired and/or on the payroll of Company X, why do you think it is in my interests to denounce them? Sure, in private I might air my views to the boss but that is as far as it goes. Publicly, I would feel obligated to support my employer's position whether I agree with them or not.

As with reporters, when Obama first got elected, it would NOT be wise to say bad things about him unless your ground was certain. Say after he got re-elected or if the popular opinion changed, you can bet he'd be led to the slaughter like a lamb.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

I agree that after 9-11 much of the nation supported Bush.

I'm not sure 'true-believers' on the right would consider me one of them. I tend to be more individualistic.

The graph from the Quarterly Journal of Economics gives a quantified reason for view the NY Times as a progressive paper.

The ombudsman at the NY Times has stated that the paper's editorial staff promotes a progressive agenda.

Their opinion writers: Maureen Down, Paul Krugman, etc make no pretense of being anything but progressives.

So.

Perhaps on this issue we can't find a common ground.

.