The more the merrierFollow

I disagree that those people are "against their interests" though. I suppose that's part of what I'm trying to get across. I'm challenging the assumption that conservative ideology is "for the rich", while liberal ideology is "for the poor". I believe that this is an assignment that is derived from and by liberals in order to make their own ideology more appealing to the masses. It innately assumes that each sides objective is to benefit one group at the expense of the other, which I don't believe is the case. I think that liberal ideology relies on this assumption, but conservatives will tend to think in terms of individual liberty versus group outcomes.




That's not it at all. Quite the opposite. I reject that assumption. I believe liberal ideology appeals to people's best interests while conservative ideology appeals to principles of liberty. Poor conservatives are conservatives because they believe that individual liberty is more important than their own direct status (putting society ahead of themselves really). Poor liberals are liberal because they are picking the side that is best for them. They put their own benefits ahead of things like personal liberty, freedom of choice, etc. This dynamic is clearly seen in the whole ACA debate. It's a clear case where self interest opposes liberty.

Someone get Steve Doocy.

I know in the past you've asserted that it's not hypocritical to oppose something but continue to use as otherwise you'd be put in a serious disadvantage since your opponents won't not use it. I think you used a football analogy around some rule or other. It's hypocritical now though eh?

It was clear. Just stupid.

From your original Post you said the guy was decrying the fact that money has too large an influence in media. According to you, he was not specifically targeting anyone, but complaining about the situation that has been created by this ruling and past ones in the same vein. So now you're shifting what the person was complaining about to something other than what you presented, and declaring that is why you find it hypocritical.

Based on your post it seems to me that fits the example given above, given that if money in politics were more controlled it would affect everyone equally.

I thought the comment about how this was "1 minute after saying how important it is to make sure to elect a Democrat to the White House in 2016 so that more progressive justices could be appointed to the Supreme Court", indicated how his opposition was to conservative speech, but you are correct that I didn't explicitly state this. Um... He did basically go on a diatribe about how this was unfair to liberals, and how conservatives were destroying the nation, etc, etc, etc. At one point, he actually said that it was strange that we spent so much time hunting terrorists abroad when we've got 5 of them on the Supreme Court.

Just making sure we're clear how hard core anti-conservative he was. This was not an intellectual discussion about how funded speech should be in an ideal world. It was more like "We can't allow those darn conservatives to spend money influencing people's opinions!!!"




Sure. Again though, he wandered well past the actual issue (individuals being able to donate to as many campaigns as they want) to a more broad "money isn't speech and shouldn't be allowed to be used to influence political outcomes", right after he just used a platform paid for with money to ask people to vote a particular way in the next presidential election so as to obtain a very specific political outcome. That's where the hypocrisy came from.


It was really more the lack of recognition that his own speech was paid for in precisely the same way as that he was railing against. And he either didn't realize this, or he was banking on his audience not realizing it. I guess what I'm getting at is that he clearly wasn't actually opposed to funded political speech, but using the issue to spin up anti-conservative sentiment.

Well, if someone you hated wrote an op-ed and someone else accidentally used the logo you had on your website for a decade alongside it, you'd be commenting about it too.

Yeah, the "article", such as it was, was just him saying "haha, check out the image. Seriously though, no big deal it's just clip art" but this totally proved... something.

Now I know why there's no conservative leaning comedy shows.

No one calls Dennis Miller "comedy".

Mallard Fillmore might still be running though!

"Half Hour News Hour". Lasted like three episodes.

Disagree. It is/was comedy. Just, yannow, not particularly funny. Kind of like The Daily Show with Craig Kilborn.

I was pretty ok with Dennis Miller when he was on SNL. In fact he was one my preferred comedians at the time.

He went downhill from there.