Ignats75

Pangaea,

You've talked to the average Iraqi? You've visited over there and know what they are thinking? Based on your responses I can tell the answer to that question, so again, my whole theory about arguing with Ignorance stands. You have no understanding of what America is or stands for, so there is no point. You're opinion is meaningless because its not based on reality.

Giziar

/me takes small sidestep

Taking the same logic as Ignats then almost all american's opinions on the world are irrelevant as they have no clue what is happening outside the USA.

Dr. Hook

I submit to you that it all depends on where you are. In most parts of California, or Massachusetts, or New York, for example, being a conservative is a huge disadvantage. Who is the last conservative congressman from Mass. ? And I can list many more than 2 liberals in national elected office off the top of my head: Nancy Pelosi, Shelia Jackson Lee, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Shumer, Hilary Clinton, Ron Wyden, Barney Frank, John Kerry, Diane Feinstein . . . on and on the list goes.

I'll give you that its tougher in places like Texas to be a liberal, but then again, we have our share of liberals in office at the state and national level. Again, it all depends on where you are in the state. A good pct. of the reps from Austin, Houston, San Antonio, and even from the DFW area are left of center.

Pangaea, I will say Ny Times, and LA Times, and Chicago Tribune, and Washington Post and pretty much all the big city newspapers are left-leaning. In addition the TV networks ABC, NBC, CBS, plus PBS which is publicly funded and should NOT have a slant are all left of center in the way they report and present issues. As for the Senate, see the list above. I can think of a few Bush "cronies" though most of the conservatives in the Senate have been there long before Bush.

What I do think here, is that your view of right and left is far different from mine. Secondly, we can;t reduce it to a single issue. Even if you could prove that the NY TImes was pro-war, which it most certainly is not in my view, you have to look at where it stands on a range of social, political and economic issues.

gfairbairn

Ignats, have you talked to average Iraqi?? You don't have had to talked to one to understand what it is we are doing there and just how badly it is going. I have, its crap. Been there done that, they don't want us there. We dont want to be there (except Buch and Rumsfeld) Pesonally I think most of what Pangaea has said has been right on.

Pangaea

Holy crap. What constitutes a liberal over there then? Slightly left of Bush? I don't know about all the names you mention, but Hillary Clinton sure ain't liberal. And neither is Kerry. He probably was when he came back from Vietnam and started his career, but not anymore. Ted Kennedy I agree on.

NYT, among other papers too I believe, posted an apology last year I think about their pro-war journalism before the war. PBS I can agree are left of center of the TV channels, they bring up many issues with US foreign policy and domestic policy, but the others? Pfft. Business ahead of all else.

Ignats, that is such a stupid thing to say, it's not much point in arguing against it. Besides based on my replies, it is far more likely I've been there than you have.

Dr. Hook

President Bush requested, and was granted by Congress, nearly a billion dollars in aid (both short and long term funds)to victims of the Asian tsunami. The funds are going to five different countries hardest hit. It is interesting that things like this never get any mention, only the "bad" stuff. So the question is, has the US, under the Bush administration, allocated millions in money and resources to helping people in Southeast Asia recover from the disaster?

gfairbairn

NY Times definately not Pro War. You are correct in that in NY, Chicago, and LA the papers are more liberal. Though you have Fox News (fair and balanced my ass) which is basically a Bush propaganda machine. I do not agree that CBS, NBC and the likes are neutral however. That depends on where you live. I once lived in Missouri and CBS there was so Conservative and to the right it was insane. Here in Chicago it is much more centered, though on any issue that question Dubya they tend to side with him.

Dr. Hook

Just look at their voting records and bills proposed, not their rhetoric when positioning themselves for a presidential run. That info is readily available. Hilary is a big lib, as is Kerry. But again, maybe there is a difference in what we are calling libs and cons.

The main difference between left and right here in the US is the role of government in the lives of its citizens. The liberal, by and large, wants more government control over the lives of the population, while the conservative, by and large, wants less. Nearly everything comes down to that equation.

gfairbairn

Just look at their voting records and bills proposed, not their rhetoric when positioning themselves for a presidential run. That info is readily available. Hilary is a big lib, as is Kerry. But again, maybe there is a difference in what we are calling libs and cons.

The main difference between left and right here in the US is the role of government in the lives of its citizens. The liberal, by and large, wants more government control over the lives of the population, while the conservative, by and large, wants less. Nearly everything comes down to that equation. </BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that that is what the definition should be, but I think that what they are has changed. In my liberal biased eyes a conservative wants wants more religion in government, is opposed to marijuana in any shape or form, is opposed to gay marriage. Basically IMO conservatives would like God to run the country. A liberal see no problem with gay marriage, is opposed to the war, would like to see the seperation of church and state get far bigger than it is. I do not really consider Kerry a lib. Used to, till he didn't have the balls to stand for his convictions during the race. Hillary I think is, but whether she will fold under the "moral values" during her race is to be seen.

Giziar

It's not that the rest of the world is totally blind for the good things the US does. It however comes down to two things:
1) It's simply being outdone by the "bad" stuff
2) The level of good stuff is much lower (noticeable) then from other western countries

Do I need to mention: Kyoto, Development Assistance, Convention on the Rights of the Child, and so on and so on.