djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 26, 2014 0:02:43 GMT -5
did you read the study, Paul? i think it is fascinating. No, because as I said- I reject the premise. you should read the study precisely because you reject the premise. it keeps you from becoming a Banzai Conservative.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 26, 2014 0:03:47 GMT -5
Instead of a poll which starts out with the assumption that "reliable" and "mainstream" are known quantities, and then seeks to pigeon-hole respondents accordingly, ... did you read the study, Paul? i think it is fascinating. No, because as I said- I reject the premise. If this is what you are referring to, it isn't the premise of the study.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 26, 2014 0:11:05 GMT -5
Liberals lack a basic knowledge of current events as well. Try these out on the next liberal you meet: 1. What is "Operation Fast & Furious"?; gun running operation that began under Bush under a different name. 2. Who is Louis Lerner and what did she claim to lose? IRS and emails. 3. Who was Chris Stevens? the first US embassador killed in a generation. 4. Who is Major Hasan? not ringing a bell right now. was he the Texas shoot up guy? 5. What is the XL Keystone Pipeline? the tar sands pipeline that is proposed to run from Alberta to the Gulf 6. What is Solyndra? failed solar company that got taxpayer funds 7. Who is Vladimir Putin? the emporer of the New Soviet Union, and a real man, according to FOX 8. Who is Bowe Bergdahl? the idiot defector that we traded detainees for 9. What is the VA, and what recent issues have surfaced concerning the VA? it is a commonwealth and home to Monticello. just kidding, it is the Veterans Administration and has a higher rating among participants than the US healthcare system. 10. Who is Frank Marshall Davis, and what relationship did he have to President Obama? i looked into Mr Davis and determined that he didn't have much influence on Obama at all in the practical sense, given that he is pretty much a wimpy ass moderate, and Davis had balls of steel. But they can tell you all about WMD's (most liberals I know still think there weren't any; then most liberals are stupid. there were WMD's in Iraq, but they were not viable. we knew that or we would never have sent troops in (IMO). Scott Ritter knew it too, but the Bush administration, in it's infinite wisdom, decided to use Curveball, a known source of bad intelligence, as their case for going to war instead (even though Ritter was screaming like a broken car alarm for an entire YEAR prior to the invasion). probably because they didn't really care about the evidence. at least that is what i have concluded.and do not know Hillary Clinton voted for the use of force authorization in Iraq), of course. she was convinced by the bad intelligence, just as you and 60% of the US public was. i was never convinced. i (a liberal) was right.they know all about Trayvon Martin, and Michael Brown-- and concerning the issues liberals "know about", to paraphrase Reagan- it's not that are liberal friends are ignorant, it's that they know so much that isn't so. yes, Reagan's bigotry of liberals is well known, as is yours. for my part, i actually know that conservatives are capable of human empathy and understanding, they just choose not to employ it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 26, 2014 0:11:44 GMT -5
Instead of a poll which starts out with the assumption that "reliable" and "mainstream" are known quantities, and then seeks to pigeon-hole respondents accordingly, ... No, because as I said- I reject the premise. If this is what you are referring to, it isn't the premise of the study. nor is it the conclusion.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 26, 2014 0:36:50 GMT -5
my turn, Paul. no peeking:
1) what was the Bank of Credit and Commerce? 2) what private concern do George Soros, GHW Bush, and "Bandar Bush" have in common? 3) what is the Golden Triangle, and what significance does it have to the CIA? 4) what was the determination of UN elections auditors in Venezuela in the years Chavez ran for president? 5) Al Gore never said he invented the internet. what did he say? 6) what famous gotcha journalist entered an ACORN office dressed in pimp drag? 7) true or false: the DOD lists cause of death of over (50) detainees at Abu Gharib as "homicide" at the hands of their interrogators? 8) true or false: the 2008/2009 budget deficit on the day Obama took office was estimated at $1.2T 9) which presidency saw better job growth, GDP growth, and investment growth in his first six years in office: Reagan, Clinton, GWBush, or Obama? 10) who is president Zelaya, and why is he a significant figure for Obama?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 26, 2014 0:54:41 GMT -5
I would disagree about your opinion that viewers of certain media are less informed than people who view no news at all,
that's not "my opinion", it is the conclusion of one of the studies i posted. if you disagree with that conclusion, then i would expect you to provide evidence that contradicts it.
but will give you credit for finally stating this is your opinion and not fact.
i didn't say that. i said that IMO, cable news is responsible for dumbing people down, and it is not just some kind of magical coincidence.
There's a lot of "news" out there man...just because you don't like some of it doesn't mean that people aren't getting information.
i qualified the point earlier. i said that those that use these sources EXCLUSIVELY or MAINLY are less informed. the study said that too, btw. so, yes, those that don't use these media exclusively are better informed. the study says that, as well.
Let me give you an example - I watched the Rachel Maddow show once while running on the treadmill at the gym and the sound wasn't working on any other TV channel. Naturally she started out with a few jabs about the military and then moved on to rich people and how evil they are, but finally she got to the point which was a drone little remote controlled robot that could go in and disable roadside bombs. Naturally she didn't give a shit that it would save lives, and she was obviously pretty distressed about the fact that a CEO and all those rich people who own stocks and stuff might make money off it - her "angle" was that the government created jobs by making this drone vehicle.
i listed MSNBC viewers as one of the two least informed network audiences, bro.
So out of all that mess and the insults etc, I did learn that we were making a drone is my point. I know Rachel Maddow isn't "news," she's an entertainer like Rush Limbaugh or Glen beck, but my point is that you can still learn something. So I think that study is BS.
sorry, but i am disinclined to consider your thoughts unless you can articulate WHY you think the study is BS. and it is Glenn Beck, i believe.
I'm glad you said this was your opinion though. The first time this article was posted here, the more liberal folks jumped all over it like it was fact or something because they wanted to believe it. At the end of the day, when you post such a biased article with a thread title like "Why Conservatives Opt for Propaganda Over Reality" you're going to have a tough time defending that position. It's just inflammatory junk man. I think you can come up with something better to bash conservatives about LoL.
the thread title was intended to inspire conversation. a little alienation is good for the debate. seriously, tho- Ratchetts, i get this kind of crap here every day. you HAVE to know that. and yes, i find it annoying. so, welcome to the club.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 26, 2014 0:55:24 GMT -5
did you read the study, Paul? i think it is fascinating. No, because as I said- I reject the premise. I should note that, considering what started the thread, it makes perfect sense for you to post this.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 26, 2014 0:58:59 GMT -5
No, because as I said- I reject the premise. I should note that, considering what started the thread, it makes perfect sense for you to post this. echo echo echo echo echo .....
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 26, 2014 1:05:24 GMT -5
The bottom line is that if the answers don't roll off easily-- I no longer take the time to speak to them. If you don't know the basics, you aren't qualified to argue a position on an issue of great importance- so go waste someone else's time. If that's "polarization" - so be it. I no longer suffer fools lightly as I once did. you can't possibly realize how with you i am on this.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 26, 2014 1:09:51 GMT -5
Virgil: the Pew study doesn't measure beliefs. it measures two things: media habits and knowledge of stuff that is going on. it has much in common with the other two studies i posted in that respect, and has surprisingly strong confirmation on the basic conclusions: that those that limit their exposure to a few sources are less informed, and that those that take in a broad palate of media are better informed.
here is WHY i find this study so distressing: that liberals and conservatives only have a few media sources in common that they trust. a very few. and that means that they are both working off different "facts" (or, if you prefer, entirely different perspectives which are informed by different media with differing political agendas). how meaningful do you think the debate can be, in political terms, if that is the case?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 26, 2014 1:17:21 GMT -5
Right now- without looking it up: Who is Terry Bean? didn't know without looking it up. your turn: Who is Jeff Gannon?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 26, 2014 4:57:56 GMT -5
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Nov 26, 2014 7:53:46 GMT -5
Translation: Their answers are not the same as your answers, so therefore, you consider them to be ignorant and wrong.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2014 13:19:58 GMT -5
my turn, Paul. no peeking: 1) what was the Bank of Credit and Commerce? money laundering operation set up during the Reagan administration to funnel funds to the Contras, bypassing the Boland Amendment.2) what private concern do George Soros, GHW Bush, and "Bandar Bush" have in common? they all served on the BOD for the Carlysle Group.3) what is the Golden Triangle, and what significance does it have to the CIA? very similar operation to question 1, but 20 years earlier, and under a different president.4) what was the determination of UN elections auditors in Venezuela in the years Chavez ran for president? "free and fair"5) Al Gore never said he invented the internet. what did he say? i can't remember the phrase exactly, but something like this "as a member of congress, i helped authorize the funding that helped create the internet". it was a dumb thing to say, but it was way less dumb than the sound bite.6) what famous gotcha journalist entered an ACORN office dressed in pimp drag? none.7) true or false: the DOD lists cause of death of over (50) detainees at Abu Gharib as "homicide" at the hands of their interrogators? true.8) true or false: the 2008/2009 budget deficit on the day Obama took office was estimated at $1.2T true. 9) which presidency saw better job growth, GDP growth, and investment growth in his first six years in office: Reagan, Clinton, GWBush, or Obama? Clinton. Reagan is actually third on this list, and Bush is, of course, dead last. 10) who is president Zelaya, and why is he a significant figure for Obama? this is a coup that Obama helped cover up. it is actually a real stain on his resume, imo. Zelaya was democratically elected, but Obama threw his support to the guy that overthrew him. this is an important illustration of the coherence in our foreign policy through differing administrations. i am puzzled as to how Bush's approach would have been any different.
since you apparently only have interest in giving quizzes, not taking them, i answered for you. i would be surprised if conservatives could get TWO of those right. however, unlike Paul, i don't think it is because conservatives are stupid and lazy. i think that, like liberals, they tend to accept things that make sense to them, and they don't bother questioning them. but moreover, these are stories that you would probably never hear on FOX News, for one reason or another. edit: Happy Thanskgiving!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2014 13:26:50 GMT -5
Right now- without looking it up: Who is Terry Bean? didn't know without looking it up. your turn: Who is Jeff Gannon? male prostitute and right wing goon who was given secured access to the WH for a number of social functions for reasons that are somewhat obscure.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2014 13:30:04 GMT -5
did anyone say "liberals also opt for propaganda over reality" in this thread? you could have, you know.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Nov 27, 2014 13:56:34 GMT -5
Gannon: Male prostitute, rightwing goon, and phonily credentialed member of the WH Press Corp that apparently spent 100 nights in the WH. One rumor I heard was that Carl Rove liked it from the south.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Nov 27, 2014 14:03:27 GMT -5
You can't even stop on Thanksgiving.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Nov 27, 2014 14:26:59 GMT -5
I'm thankful that Karl was stuffed like a turkey.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 27, 2014 15:00:08 GMT -5
Yeah, but as a general rule they are also far more likely to seek out multiple sources to limit that possibility. Gotta give 'em credit for trying. Too many conservatives don't.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 27, 2014 15:05:44 GMT -5
Ironic for someone to post that on Thanksgiving, don'cha think?
On another subject, are you able to make a substantive post on a substantive thread? On any day, Thanksgiving or not?
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Nov 27, 2014 17:44:48 GMT -5
There is no "gay bashing".
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Nov 27, 2014 18:04:27 GMT -5
There is no "gay bashing". There's also no need to bring it into this conversation. It has no place here. Rumors, for that matter, have no place anywhere.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 27, 2014 19:28:07 GMT -5
Yeah, but as a general rule they are also far more likely to seek out multiple sources to limit that possibility. Gotta give 'em credit for trying. Too many conservatives don't. the fact that not one, not two, but THREE comprehensive studies on this subject are not enough evidence for conservatives to at least CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY that they, as a group, are the least informed of all voters is, in a word, disturbing. not surprising, however, given the problem.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,612
|
Post by Tennesseer on Nov 28, 2014 11:07:07 GMT -5
Yeah, but as a general rule they are also far more likely to seek out multiple sources to limit that possibility. Gotta give 'em credit for trying. Too many conservatives don't. @ the fact that not one, not two, but THREE comprehensive studies on this subject are not enough evidence for conservatives to at least CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY that they, as a group, are the least informed of all voters is, in a word, disturbing. not surprising, however, given the problem. The fact there have been seven Republican-led Congressional Benghazi investigations (and working on their eighth) should have been your first clue.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 28, 2014 11:55:08 GMT -5
@ the fact that not one, not two, but THREE comprehensive studies on this subject are not enough evidence for conservatives to at least CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY that they, as a group, are the least informed of all voters is, in a word, disturbing. not surprising, however, given the problem. The fact there have been seven Republican-led Congressional Benghazi investigations (and working on their eighth) should have been your first clue. the number of clues make Hanzel and Gretel look like utter slackers.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 29, 2014 10:55:09 GMT -5
i finally finished reading all 8 pages of this report and the appendixes, and absorbing it's conclusions. here is what i observed: 1) consistent conservatives are really in a different place than the other four survey groups. if you look at every question, there are no consistent matches with this group and any other. consistent liberals are most closely matched in opposition to "mostly conservative". 2) the new consumption habits of the American political class sucks. the most trusted media across idealogical groups gets viewed less than media that is less trusted. ie- the MSM comes in no better than 6th on the survey, but of the top five most trusted news outlets, only ONE makes the top 10 for weekly viewership/listenership (NPR). 3) there is only ONE media source that is trusted by all five groups (WSJ). the results are somewhat better for four of the five groups. there are FIVE media outlets that are trusted by every group OTHER than consistent conservatives: Google, USA Today, ABC, BBC, and The Economist. that is actually a nice blend of news, imo. there is some right leaning, some left leaning, and some centrist sources on that list, and all are fairly reputable. what this tells me is that consistent liberals and consistent conservatives not only see things differently, they don't share the same news sources, the same friends, or the same social media, generally speaking. because of this, AND the fact that these two groups are more politically active, we can see what is driving the discontinuity in the national debate: a lack of comity and common language. i find this result kind of depressing, candidly. but i'll get over it.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 1, 2014 22:58:39 GMT -5
Virgil: the Pew study doesn't measure beliefs. it measures two things: media habits and knowledge of stuff that is going on. it has much in common with the other two studies i posted in that respect, and has surprisingly strong confirmation on the basic conclusions: that those that limit their exposure to a few sources are less informed, and that those that take in a broad palate of media are better informed. here is WHY i find this study so distressing: that liberals and conservatives only have a few media sources in common that they trust. a very few. and that means that they are both working off different "facts" (or, if you prefer, entirely different perspectives which are informed by different media with differing political agendas). how meaningful do you think the debate can be, in political terms, if that is the case? Let's take Ferguson, MO and the shooting death of Michael Brown as just one example. What the fuck difference would the outcome of a study measuring media habits and knowledge of "stuff that's going on" of people that do not understand why Officer Wilson was not ultimately indicted? Sure, there are some nuances that ***MAYBE*** intelligent people could be concerned with, but they don't have a thing to do with race, they have more to do with the police, and this particular incident isn't the strongest example of the problem- which is how police officers are treated when they use deadly force. I would like to see the police treated no differently than civilians. That, however, ain't gonna happen- but it's not because of public perception of the police, but rather due to case law / precedent. The only rule for the police is that they cannot use force 'excessively', and the officer's perception at the time of the incident (who determines THAT, may I ask?) and NOT hindsight determines if force is justified. So, for example, if what begins as a minor traffic infraction turns into a police chase, the police can end the chase by firing 15 shots into the car (and who knows how many bullets flying elsewhere?) killing one of the occupants-- Supreme Court in Plumhoff v. Rickard-- we seem to have adopted a "whatever the police think is necessary" approach to law enforcement without respect to a person's rights or public safety. Missouri has adopted the Supreme Court’s rule. In Jones v. City of St. Louis, 92 F.Supp.2d 949 (E.D. Mo., 2000), the court held that the Officer was justified in his use of deadly force where the officer believes that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm. In Fitzgerald v. Patrick, 927 F.2d 1037 (8th Cir., 1991), the 8th Circuit Court held that the Officer was justified in his use of deadly force where he believed it was necessary. In the Ferguson incident, I believe there was a strong argument for the use of force- the suspect had just committed a violent felony, the suspect then assaulted the officer and attempted to disarm the officer causing the discharge of the cop's gun inside the squad car, the suspect fled, the suspect (what is it with some people?) then turned and charged the officer- refusing to obey commands to STOP! That will pretty much get you shot by the police every time. I agree with the court on the "unarmed" part- as with Trayvon Martin- "unarmed" is not a mitigating factor. When the victim of an assault is armed, there's one gun at a minimum that's in the fight. The armed victim not only has a right, but a duty to ensure the weapon remains in their control, and deadly force to achieve that aim is justified-- not merely because I say so, but because case law has held this to be true repeatedly and for civilians and police alike. But getting back to the matter at hand- what the hell do I care about the mob's and allies of the mob's media viewing habits? Where does the mob get its collective information? CNN, MSNBC, CBS, and unfortunately- increasingly- direct from the Obama White House which is reportedly proposing classroom projects which involve a Michael Brown memorial. That thug ain't a "martyr". Like Trayvon, it's a tragedy, but it's not like he's the type of guy society is going to miss, unless you count missing out on feeding him prison meals for 30 years.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 2, 2014 0:29:39 GMT -5
Virgil: the Pew study doesn't measure beliefs. it measures two things: media habits and knowledge of stuff that is going on. it has much in common with the other two studies i posted in that respect, and has surprisingly strong confirmation on the basic conclusions: that those that limit their exposure to a few sources are less informed, and that those that take in a broad palate of media are better informed. here is WHY i find this study so distressing: that liberals and conservatives only have a few media sources in common that they trust. a very few. and that means that they are both working off different "facts" (or, if you prefer, entirely different perspectives which are informed by different media with differing political agendas). how meaningful do you think the debate can be, in political terms, if that is the case? Let's take Ferguson, MO and the shooting death of Michael Brown as just one example. What the fuck difference would the outcome of a study measuring media habits and knowledge of "stuff that's going on" of people that do not understand why Officer Wilson was not ultimately indicted? it wouldn't. there are some important lessons to learn from Ferguson that the MSM is not even discussing. therefore liberals and conservatives would be equally ill served by it.sorry, Paul, but i don't have time for the rest of that. thanks for the post tho.
|
|