The liberal radio network named after a CIA operation is done, finally. Put a nail in it. Hope and Change is sweeping the nation.

http://airamerica.com/

You know, I'm kind of amazed at all the current events people haven't started threads on here. I usually wait for awhile to start one, especially if it's political in nature because you all just call me a troll for discussing politics but even things like Haiti haven't been brought up (until it had something to do with RPGs) which I found pretty funny when we had the first 2010 death thread (I so wanted to call this topic by that template). Everytime someone sneezes in the UK we get a thread for all the "britassians" to check in it seems. If it weren't for the misunderstood Conan threads I wouldn't think anybody was paying attention to any current events.

I thought this thread was gonna be about airlines...

Congratulations! You've discovered that more Liberals are interested in National Public Radio (NPR) than in Air America. I think that you should be more concerned with the fact that Liberals tend to listen to radio that's less biased than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Al Franken & Rachel Maddow. I'm about as far left as it gets & even I don't watch MSNBC or listen to Air America on a regular basis. Besides, in regards to your current events comment, I think most of us are too busy reading news about Haiti to worry about something that they never cared about in the first place. Hell, even John Stewart took a shot at Keith Olbermann last night because he's becoming more & more like the ****ing idiots over at Fox News (e.g. exaggerating, name-calling, shouting). I find that most Liberals that I come in to contact with are more interested in listening to music on the radio instead of the liberal equivalent of Rush Limbaugh (assuming anyone else's head could be that large) & when they do listen to radio news, it's more likely to be something that's relatively moderate (e.g. NPR).

Yeah. The liberal radio station went under while conservative radio programs flourish.

Maybe because liberals spend their days working instead of listening to political talk radio.

Yeah. For some strange reason, though, Bill O'Reilly is still paying for his radio show out of pocket. It's almost like he can't get advertisers or something. Strange, since conservative radio and television is so honest and informative.

The most liberal people in the United States, by job, are professors. On the other hand, the most conservative people in the United States are religious workers, law enforcement, the military, the underemployed and the unemployable. "Why?" is the question that needs to be addressed.

Statistic: 45% of Americans believe it's very likely that they will become rich at some point. Theory: Professors are not among that 45%.

Social scientists, and people who are interested in their work, have known for the better part of 40 years that class mobility in the United States is totally stagnant. In fact, according to the numbers, people living in just about any other developed nation are more likely to increase their class status, in spite of the United States' pro-business rhetoric and presumed economic acumen. 50% of Americans believe it is wrong to tax the rich. And the American taxpayer always gets what he wants: over the last 30 years, America's "progressive" taxation has given the bottom 99% of Americans an extra 0.08% income. At the same time, the top 1% earned an extra 658%. It's almost like trickle-down economics don't work, but most Americans are never made aware of that fact. The American Dream is a ridiculous lie, and I believe professors are liberal because they're smart enough to realize their money is evaporating at the hands of robber barons like Rupert Murdoch.

What you said about 'spending their days working instead of listening to political talk radio' should resonate with anybody interested in this topic. It's pretty much my theory: most people who identify as conservative don't actually believe in it, understand it or truly want it; they identify as conservative because they don't know what else to do. Religious workers? Soldiers? Law enforcement? People who don't, won't or can't work? If I had to come up with one word to describe all of these people, it would be inert. Conservatism isn't a political ideology to them, it's a resting state. While the professors are counting all of their lost money, the conservatives either don't have any to count - or they're too stupid to realize that they will never become rich and will never ever benefit from the tax breaks they keep demanding.

Okay, so professors are liberal because they're smart, and the inert are conservative because idle hands are the devil's plaything. That still doesn't answer the real question: Since when are conservatives okay with having their **** stolen?

It's the bitter competitiveness of America's businesses, more aptly, large corporations that stagnate the classes. Without any research, study, stats, or knowledge save my own witnessing of events unfold, the competitive drive has gone beyond ridiculous. Companies are out to absolutely crush one another and become reigning champion and Lord of [Product]. It is impossible for a "mom & pop" store to be successful if Walmart moves in right next door to suck said "mom & pop" business away to their Supercenter. I think we are seeing 1920s laissez-faire capitalism take foot. So really, you are stuck working for a large corporation making $60K/yr or more since that is your best avenue. If you offer a product that some what competes with large corporation, you'll be driven asunder. I think you have more of a chance to rise from "poverty" to "middle class" but you have a snowball's chance in hell to rise to "rich"

Soldiers and law enforcement are inert?

You know, I don't even know whether he still has a radio show. Of course I could easily find out on the internet but I was assuming it was off the air. I don't understand, though, why you would sarcastically imply it is not honest or informative. I mean, if you really listened to any of the shows that I am familiar with you would understand that a variety of material and views are discussed so while you might disagree with the conclusions and opinions they are not necessarily exclusionary when it comes to the presentation of the opposing opinions.



You should probably expound on this. I mean, really, the only requirement to be a professor is, basically, to be a career student followed by career educator. And, consistent with many of the views you present as fact in this post you really should cite some sources if you want to be taken seriously. Of course I understand that you're basically preaching to the choir so I wouldn't expect that most people would question you here.



Cite, please. I would say that 100% of Americans should believe that they have the opportunity to become rich, various disabled type groups excepted.



You really need to break this down in a different way for me because as you have phrased it, it is simple to destroy. Even by an uneducated hick such as myself.



*sigh* So a minority of Americans create a plurality of conservatism? To give you partial credit I think I can admit that many people don't understand their ideology. I have always been conservative but I didn't know it nor could I have said why 15 years ago. As I grew older and then got exposed to conservative media, I realized how my personal philosophical views were conservative. To disappoint you it wasn't so easy as being indoctrinated. I actually shook my fist many times to Rush Limbaugh in the beginning. However, I was inspired to further think my views through. This would actually be a separate discussion and I would be happy to have it with you if you actually answered PMs from me.



Come on man. You know, I know I'm the troll here but I swear to God that if the Massassi Elite didn't regard you as this sacrosanct intellectual you would have that label. You turn practically any conservative minded discussion into an anti-Fox News, anti-Conservative Media mantra that I am surprised even the lefties here don't mention it.

*end line by line response*

I've kind of thought that I should somewhat put an end to my Ann Coulter-ish attitude here. The real old timers know that I can present myself far different that the typical opinion know. I would be totally willing to have a discussion with someone like Jon'C, possibly moderated, in a one-on-one thread. The presumed intellectual against the redneck hick. I actually think it would be fun and if CM, JC, and I can figure it out I say what the hell? I wouldn't mind returning to my previous demeanor and at the same time helping to usher in an environment more consistent with the Massassi of a decade ago when people would have an intelligent debate without the demeaning attacks.

100% of a capitalist society cannot become rich.

*believe

He's probably referring to something like this. As Antony stated, it's probably impossible for everyone to be wealthy so it wouldn't be that difficult for people to draw the conclusion that they'll most likely never be wealthy.

I don't think I should really have to explain this. If 100% of a society believes it can be rich then most of them are badly deluded due to the fact that 100% of a society cannot be rich.

EDIT: Oh, I'm sorry, I guess I missed the announcement that "rich" was being given a subjective definition in this.

Interesting that you mention this. The income gap in the United States is bad. Really bad. If you compare the top 0.01% to the bottom 90%, it was 976:1 back in 2006. In all of American history, the only other time it's gotten that bad was in 1928.

If you graph the income gap, you'll notice that it was fairly stable from the end of the Great Depression all the way to Ronald Reagan's celebrated reforms, where it abruptly splays out like the legs of a Republican's daughter.

I'm not joking.

Straight line -> Reagan -> vertical asymptote

Adjusted for inflation, the top 0.01% have increased their annual income by 5 times since Reagan took power. Adjusted for inflation, the 'bottom' 90% are making $72 more.

The tax rate for top earners slid from 94% immediately after the Great Depression (one of the many reforms designed to prevent it from ever happening again) to... 23%. Most of which they never have to pay. Let me remind you: the United States is a country where the richest 400 people have more money combined than the poorest 152 million. But 50% of Americans don't want rich people to be taxed... ever??

And people ***** because the government has to take out loans to keep the roads paved.

I would somewhat agree with that but the vast majority of us all do have that opportunity and when you consider that we all have the opportunity to save and invest, we all certainly have the opportunity to retire "rich". "Rich" is also a very vague term.

100% of people cannot be rich. End of story. If everyone is rich then rich is normal and therefore everyone is normal. Not rich.

Jon'C, are you purposely avoiding the fact that we *do* have a rediculously "progressive" tax code in this country?

rIdiculously

I think that you'll have a difficult time proving that the vast majority of us have the opportunity to be wealthy. I suspect that the opposite is actually true considering the income gap in this country. I find it disturbing that you think that everyone has the opportunity to save & invest. What planet are you from? Have you ever met a poor person? Why don't you take a day off of work next week, drive down to the nearest soup kitchen & explain to these people that they're waisting their time being homeless because there are so many opportunities out there to become wealthy. Nevermind the possibility that no one in the history of their family has ever been wealthy.

Okay, this isn't kindergarten. Everyone never will be rich because everyone will not be responsible with money. Everyone could retire debt free with a million plus in the bank enabling them to be financially independant. That really isn't even debatable because it takes so little to accomplish. Now I'm sure that some economic dweeb would argue that the ump-teen trillion dollars that would put uncirculated would radically drive up inflation or some such nonsense but it is a moot point because it is a certifiable fact that even though [virtually] everyone has the potential to accomplish that, everyone won't choose to.

I know, I know. For some reason that is one of the words I chronically mispell despite knowing it is wrong.

100% of a society believing they can be rich is not the same thing as 100% of a society believing 100% of their society can be rich.

Believing one can be rich is not in and of itself evidence of delusion.

[Edit: This isn't exactly an argument, just nit picking.]

Also I agree with Antony, "rich" is relative. Relative to some third world countries, we are all rich. So 100% of a society can be "rich" with the right perspective.

Everyone cannot retire debt free with a million plus in the bank. This is a fact. Not because they aren't responsible with money. Because it's NOT POSSIBLE.

Sounds like a dare to me.

[Edit: Oh right, you're still talking about *everyone*. nm.]

You can. But not everyone can because if everyone is conservative with money, certain people don't make as much money and they can't employ people who then lose jobs and don't make ANY money. In a capitalist society there will always be rich and poor people. No matter how responsible people are with money there will always be rich and poor people.

But you don't have to make that much money to be debt free or invest. If your point is that it can't happen if everyone does it then that might be an interesting discussion but that is also a moot point because even though everyone has the opportunity many won't choose to do so.

There's a limitless amount of factors that can prevent someone from becoming rich, despite how responsible they attempt to be with their money. For instance, I have a friend that paid for his mother to fly out & stay at a cancer center in Texas. The care that she was getting locally wasn't good & they had pretty much written her off for the most part. She's still alive because of his generosity & this was almost a decade ago. I suppose that you would call that being irresponsible or say that he had a choice in the matter. I wouldn't. Can you imagine just how much more difficult it will now be for him to become wealthy? I somehow don't think that you can.


Being debt free & investing a little money can quite possibly leave you a long way from being wealthy.


Being wealthy isn't a "choice" for everyone. Do you honestly believe that if everyone had these invisible "opportunities" that you keep speaking of, that they wouldn't take advantage of it? Who is going to clean your gutters & mow your grass when everyone is rich? If people aren't educated on these "opportunities" they're not really opportunities at all.

You don't seem to understand. If we're all responsible with out money, and we don't go out and blow money on things we don't need like alcohol, cigarettes, gambling, drugs, etc... and instead we just put that money in the bank and save it, everything will be ok, right? Wrong. If we don't spend money on those things, then the people who depend on the money spent on those things don't have jobs and they don't buy the things that make the money you depend on at your job.

Case in point. You are in the Army to create peace. You don't actually want peace. With peace you're out of a job.

No, that's not even remotely true. The primary job of a professor is to do research. The primary job of a graduate student is to do research.

Research paper about liberal political alignment among professors, and why.

The problem is the fact that Americans don't have the opportunity to become rich. Should Americans believe they have the opportunity to? I don't think so. But we'll never agree, and that's okay.

Some rhetorical advice: if you can't phrase an argument without using the word 'should,' your argument is probably normative. You can't argue for it, and I can't argue against it. There's no point in even saying it.

Research paper unfavorably comparing social mobility in the United States to other nations

Can you think of a better indicator?

Never happened. Case in point:

Wookie06: If you're so worried about being "attacked" by the "Massassi Elite" then stop making ridiculous & offensive statements that you could never possibly back up with facts. Problem solved. Do you honestly expect people to not get irritated with you when you're basically telling them that they've wasted their lives avoiding the opportunity to become wealthy? If the average Massassian is like the average American, he'll/she'll never be rich. You're about the most insensitive individual that I've ever come in to contact with. You don't seem to have any compassion or understanding of the average person & what they go through in life. I don't know you but I imagine that you've never had to face the struggles that many people in this country have.

Ok. This made me laugh...a lot. She was probably good cunny, too.

Aaaaanyway. In the time span you mention the only seemingly successful Republican president is Eisenhower. To what do you attribute that?

No... but your logic is! Oh ho, I crack myself up.

Had to make the joke. I obviously mean no personal offense, and I am in no way using my above remark as a part of my refutation.

Hi. Economic dweeb checking in.

1.) The ability to accumulate wealth implies the ability to gain economic profit in the long term. In a largely-unregulated labor market like in the United States, we know that it is not possible (this knowledge dates back to Adam Smith.) If a person is making excess money, it means they would be able to work for less; the end result is apparent, and can be derived immediately from the most basic models of the free market.

2.) Prices are determined by the amount the market can bear. If everybody has more money, they will be able to spend more money on a product. This is the driving force behind inflation. There is no content here.

3.) Savings and investments provide financial institutions with more resources they can use to offer financial services (i.e. loans.) Those making purchases with debt and savings a priori have a greater amount of money to spend toward that purchase than someone using savings alone. This, too, drives inflation.

4.) The upshot is, you can't actually 'save' money. Your money will never be worth as much as it is today (in particular, interest rates on savings accounts are far less than present inflation rates.) If you put money aside, you're sacrificing utility now for anticipated utility later - and it's probably less utility, too. It's disingenuous to imply that people can't save money because they're 'weak-willed.' Sometimes it's the best choice.

Career soldier. He's probably had it worse, but that's what happens when you drink the Kool-Aid.

Thehe America.

Back on the original topic, some people are so remarkably out of touch that they think things that happen on the radio are news.

Talk radio is universally commentary on said news. It is no surprise that a liberal talk radio station failed because liberals have a tendency to make up their own minds about things instead of just regurgitating rhetoric.

I think it's perfectly obvious that the problem is not liberal talk show radio, but political "talk shows" in general.

The conflict is not between conservatives and liberals, the conflict is between people who try to have some openess, some space inside them that welcomes reality on the one hand, and people who poison themselves with purposefully out of touch bull**** like the crap you watch and listen to in the US.

Liberal crap or conservative crap, it's still crap.

How's the BBC challenge coming along, wookie?

Thank you everyone for reconfirming the stereotypes already assigned to you.

I LIKE BUSH. ALL BUSH.

<.<
>.>

What?!

Heh, I'm intrigued... What's mine?

I think one of the reasons Haiti was avoided was because no matter what was said in it at the beginning, by the end it would've turned into a flame war, which would've been really really sad.