Conservative books sell better than liberal books. Why?

[1BritonsView]

The fine folks at Amazon have constructed a “heat map” showing the kinds of political books that people are buying across the country. The more conservative a state’s literary tastes, the more red it appears on the map. The more liberal the reading habits, the bluer the state gets. Here’s the result:


Conservative authors are selling more books. That’s true in Mississippi, but it’s also true in Connecticut. And it looks like Amazon’s methodology is, if anything, understating matters. They count Jonathan Haidt’s “The Righteous Mind” as a “blue book.” I’ve read “The Righteous Mind,” and it is, if anything, a scolding of liberals. They also count “Globalization: A Very Short Introduction” and Robert Caro’s most recent biography of LBJ as blue books, which seems odd. None of the top 20 “red books” struck me as similarly misplaced. So if you correct for the outliers, the map would be even redder.

Some possible explanations:

1. Conservatives are more likely to read political books than liberals are.

2. Conservatives are more likely to read partisan political books than liberals are.

3. Conservatives are better at writing political books that people want to read than liberals are.

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/22/conservative-books-sell-better-than-liberal-books-why/

Or is it because they have more pictures in them? :laughing8:

[Mister D]

1-3 are all equally plausible. The ass kicking that Fox News gives all the other networks is a similar phenomenon. It could be that conservatives simply pay more attention to politics.

[URF8]

1-3 are all equally plausible. The ass kicking that Fox News gives all the other networks is a similar phenomenon. It could be that conservatives simply pay more attention to politics.

Conservatives are generally better educated than leftists. Many leftists are products of inner city schools that warehoused them instead of educating them.

[roadmaster]

Most liberals don't read. Just listening to the reporters asking them questions, they had no idea who most people were. I guess they watch comedy shows to get their information.

[Deadwood]

The fine folks at Amazon have constructed a “heat map” showing the kinds of political books that people are buying across the country. The more conservative a state’s literary tastes, the more red it appears on the map. The more liberal the reading habits, the bluer the state gets. Here’s the result:


Conservative authors are selling more books. That’s true in Mississippi, but it’s also true in Connecticut. And it looks like Amazon’s methodology is, if anything, understating matters. They count Jonathan Haidt’s “The Righteous Mind” as a “blue book.” I’ve read “The Righteous Mind,” and it is, if anything, a scolding of liberals. They also count “Globalization: A Very Short Introduction” and Robert Caro’s most recent biography of LBJ as blue books, which seems odd. None of the top 20 “red books” struck me as similarly misplaced. So if you correct for the outliers, the map would be even redder.

Some possible explanations:

1. Conservatives are more likely to read political books than liberals are.

2. Conservatives are more likely to read partisan political books than liberals are.

3. Conservatives are better at writing political books that people want to read than liberals are.

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/22/conservative-books-sell-better-than-liberal-books-why/

Or is it because they have more pictures in them? :laughing8:


I would agree, although I know some very intelligent and well informed liberals. But another issue is orthodoxy, the left is more religiously involved with their stance than are conservatives as a rule.

[Agravan]

The left reads only what other leftists approve of. Nothing with words of more that 3 syllables. :)

[Mister D]

I would agree, although I know some very intelligent and well informed liberals. But another issue is orthodoxy, the left is more religiously involved with their stance than are conservatives as a rule.

Good point. I also thin there is greater stratification among liberals than among conservatives. You have a segment that is over-educated and relatively well off as well as a segment that is poor and totally uneducated.

[Goldie Locks]

1-3 are all equally plausible. The ass kicking that Fox News gives all the other networks is a similar phenomenon. It could be that conservatives simply pay more attention to politics.

Yes, and our informed votes keep getting negated by stupid democratic voters.

[WalterSobchak]

Because those right wing books are all written by entertainers. And they ALL have a means to plug their books constantly to their followers/listeners.

Beck
Rush
Ingraham
Savage
Levin
Hannity


They ALL have a national radio show as entertainers & they plug their books constantly.


Not that difficult to understand, really.

[Mister D]

Because those right wing books are all written by entertainers. And they ALL have a means to plug their books constantly to their followers/listeners.

Beck
Rush
Ingraham
Savage
Levin
Hannity


They ALL have a national radio show as entertainers & they plug their books constantly.


Not that difficult to understand, really.

Apparently, it is for you. None of those authors' works are among the top twenty in the "red book" category.

[Mainecoons]

Walter, you need to learn to check your assumptions out before you post them. You just got punked again. Do yourself a favor and don't compete with Cigar in the "just got punked again" race. :rofl:

[WalterSobchak]

Apparently, it is for you. None of those authors' works are among the top twenty in the "red book" category.


Walter, you need to learn to check your assumptions out before you post them. You just got punked again. Do yourself a favor and don't compete with Cigar in the "just got punked again" race. :rofl:


So those radio hosts NEVER plug books from other conservative authors? Really?

[Mister D]

So those radio hosts NEVER plug books from other conservative authors? Really?

They probably do but it's irrelevant. An author from your list appears for the first time at #29.

[patrickt]

When you're comparing the sales of fiction books and non-fiction it isn't a level playing field. President Obama's books sold well in the U.S. till people found out that were fictionalized accounts of an imaginary boy. Not unlike Michael Moore's "mockumentaries". His use of the term "documentary" got so much flack he came up with a new word to acknowledge the lying. Perhaps President Obama will market his books as "myographies".

[Captain Obvious]

I believe the implication of the OP is accurate, conservatives collectively are more likely to subscribe to groupthink and are somewhat gullible. How does anyone explain why Beck was so successful for a while there?

Liberals tend to be more open-minded in my experience while conservatives tend to be more institutionalized, they actively look for reasons to march in lock-step with common conservative ideology.

Some may equate that to hardened principles but I'm not sure that's the case in general.

[Mainecoons]

Yes and those liberal ideas are working so well, eh?

:rofl:

[Captain Obvious]

I never said liberal ideology wasn't without flaw - certainly it has a lot of flaws, so does conservatism to a degree.

The big difference is the degree that you consider political ideology without bias. There are a lot of very smart liberals (and conservatives) out there who don't "think like" what they are, they consider what they believe is the right thing and they go with it.

What we have here with popularity in media are the more common folk, those who want to be one thing or another but don't want to think about it much, so they buy Beck's books, CD's, listen to Rush, Hannity, that frustrated old Savage every day because they feed the masses what the masses want.

Hands down, common-folk conservatives want this more so they buy it.

[Shoot the Goose]

So those radio hosts NEVER plug books from other conservative authors? Really?

Wally. C'mon. Conservatives believe in self-improvement. It is why so many more entrepeneurs, and successful folks in general, are Conservative. One part of self improvement is self-educating. Conservatives are far more likely to buy non-fiction books than liberals. Personally, I own two novels. And about 1000 non-fiction.

Liberals lean towards redistribution and free stuff. What they do not want "free" is a book, even if it might actually help them, cause then they have to read it, and that is not part of their concept of "free" ........... and easy. ;)

Haven't you at least figured out by now that the liberal class, of which you are a diehard member, seeks improvement by first assigning blame for their condition to someone else, and then seeking retribution via the government gun ? Are you ever going to wake the fuck up ?

[Shoot the Goose]

I believe the implication of the OP is accurate, conservatives collectively are more likely to subscribe to groupthink and are somewhat gullible. How does anyone explain why Beck was so successful for a while there?

Liberals tend to be more open-minded in my experience while conservatives tend to be more institutionalized, they actively look for reasons to march in lock-step with common conservative ideology.

Some may equate that to hardened principles but I'm not sure that's the case in general.

Oooops. Quite the opposite. "Group think" is characterized by non-education. Reading a book is not "group think". If anything, it is to better review and challenge one's beliefs.

Heck. Look the black community as your microcosm. There is your "group think" test tube. Liberal. You wanna sell books door to door there, even in daylight. One sale per day maybe ?

Liberalism is the ideology of lemmings. Is there a better example of group think than a lemming ?

You entire assumption was full of shit.

[patrickt]

I believe the implication of the OP is accurate, conservatives collectively are more likely to subscribe to groupthink and are somewhat gullible. How does anyone explain why Beck was so successful for a while there?

Liberals tend to be more open-minded in my experience while conservatives tend to be more institutionalized, they actively look for reasons to march in lock-step with common conservative ideology.

Some may equate that to hardened principles but I'm not sure that's the case in general.

You have to love it. Captain starts by saying conservatives are more susceptible to groupthink and then proceeds to spout...groupthink. Liberals are, in my experience, totally closed minded. They have made politics a religion. And they love to form groups and clubs closed to unbelievers.

It's like adolescents all wearing black clothing with purple Mohawks and metal studs in their face and insisting they're non-conformist. Consider the OWS nitwits repeating mindlessly after the leader and calling it "speaking with one mind".

[Shoot the Goose]

You have to love it. Captain starts by saying conservatives are more susceptible to groupthink and then proceeds to spout...groupthink. Liberals are, in my experience, totally closed minded. They have made politics a religion. And they love to form groups and clubs closed to unbelievers.

It's like adolescents all wearing black clothing with purple Mohawks and metal studs in their face and insisting they're non-conformist. Consider the OWS nitwits repeating mindlessly after the leader and calling it "speaking with one mind".

Absolutely. Liberals run from opposing views. Try to shut them down. Yet we are supposed to believe that they welcome being challenged ?

Secondly, I would pose to Obvious ..... who are the movers and shakers in our society ? The risk takers ? Is this a product of "group think" ?


Liberals are the leeches. The moochers. The cancer. If anyone wants to debate otherwise, I can only wish that you were to do so from a town of sustained liberalism, such as Detroit. And I will assume a position in Hickville.

Game-on libtards.

Scumbags.

[Awryly]

The fine folks at Amazon have constructed a “heat map” showing the kinds of political books that people are buying across the country. The more conservative a state’s literary tastes, the more red it appears on the map. The more liberal the reading habits, the bluer the state gets. Here’s the result:

Conservative authors are selling more books. That’s true in Mississippi, but it’s also true in Connecticut. And it looks like Amazon’s methodology is, if anything, understating matters. They count Jonathan Haidt’s “The Righteous Mind” as a “blue book.” I’ve read “The Righteous Mind,” and it is, if anything, a scolding of liberals. They also count “Globalization: A Very Short Introduction” and Robert Caro’s most recent biography of LBJ as blue books, which seems odd. None of the top 20 “red books” struck me as similarly misplaced. So if you correct for the outliers, the map would be even redder.

Some possible explanations:

1. Conservatives are more likely to read political books than liberals are.

2. Conservatives are more likely to read partisan political books than liberals are.

3. Conservatives are better at writing political books that people want to read than liberals are.

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/22/conservative-books-sell-better-than-liberal-books-why/

Or is it because they have more pictures in them? :laughing8:

Probably that conservatives are constantly having to buy more books that help them justify what it is, against all reality, they believe in.

[MMC]

Nah.....the reason is simple. Conservatives and Republicans have their own money. So they can afford to buy more, create more, and own more. Most of liberaldumb are broke-azz mo-foes.

[patrickt]

Probably that conservatives are constantly having to buy more books that help them justify what it is, against all reality, they believe in.

Awryly, you don't even have a nodding acquaintance with reality. Have you considered posting on a subject you know something about?

[Mainecoons]

I realize that we have a small sample here, but judging from our coterie of liberals, I could comclude that conservatives read more because they can, that is, they have the ability to read and comprehend better than those self-styled liberal intellectuals.

At least the sorry lot of lefties we have on this board. :grin:

[Cigar]

Wow ... there's an argument about everything on this Forum. :smiley_ROFLMAO:

Word has it Conservatives are bigger dicks while progressives packages are superior. :)


http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b137/chasc5/51my7WsTeWL.jpg
Why We Long for a Golden Age That Never Was (http://www.dealoz.com/load.pl?cat_id=10&op=&ean=9781118141069&data_id=28192366&asin=1118141067&op2=buy&query=joan%20walsh)

[Mainecoons]

Why are you so obsessed with genitalia? Not to worry, the first "homosexual President" is in your corner!

:rofl:

[MMC]

Wow ... there's an argument about everything on this Forum. :smiley_ROFLMAO:

Word has it Conservatives are bigger dicks while progressives packages are superior. :)


http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b137/chasc5/51my7WsTeWL.jpg
Why We Long for a Golden Age That Never Was (http://www.dealoz.com/load.pl?cat_id=10&op=&ean=9781118141069&data_id=28192366&asin=1118141067&op2=buy&query=joan walsh)




http://www.my-rock-music.ru/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Styx-1977-The-Grand-Illusion-CD.jpg

U-Guys really do need to quit listening to that Styx Album. Just because it Comes with a Blue Background. Doesn't make it Reality! :laugh:

[1BritonsView]

Why are you so obsessed with genitalia? Not to worry, the first "homosexual President" is in your corner!

:rofl:
So that's what Americans mean when they say Obama sucks.

[GrumpyDog]

Conservatives need more reassurance that their view of the world is the norm. That, and sometimes just need some more books for the coffee table or bookshelf. Covers are very important for Conservatives. Then there is that traditional "a place for everything,and everything in its place" compulsion, so a book may just happen to fit a particular pathelogical need to fill some empty space.

[MMC]

Yeah.....not to mention there just isnt that much room for Books in those Tent-Cities. :laugh:

[Captain Obvious]

Conservatives need more reassurance that their view of the world is the norm. That, and sometimes just need some more books for the coffee table or bookshelf. Covers are very important for Conservatives. Then there is that traditional "a place for everything,and everything in its place" compulsion, so a book may just happen to fit a particular pathelogical need to fill some empty space.

Agreed.

Welcome to the forum, btw. Nice to hear a fresh perspective for a change.

[GrumpyDog]

Agreed.

Welcome to the forum, btw. Nice to hear a fresh perspective for a change.

Coming from Captain Obvious, should I be insulted?

[Captain Obvious]

Yes, very.

[Shoot the Goose]

Conservatives need more reassurance that their view of the world is the norm. That, and sometimes just need some more books for the coffee table or bookshelf. Covers are very important for Conservatives. Then there is that traditional "a place for everything,and everything in its place" compulsion, so a book may just happen to fit a particular pathelogical need to fill some empty space.

Brand new and dumb as shit.

Behold the continuing absolute stupidity of liberalism. I pray for the day when we stop EBT cards and food stamps. Stop section 8 housing. Unemployment is capped at 12 weeks. Make a baby ? Pay for it or lose it.


I'll look at my coffee table filled with books. Liberals will perish.

[Captain Obvious]

Now maybe you understand my "fresh perspective" comment.

You'll see a lot of this unfortunately. Groupthink thing.

[Awryly]

Brand new and dumb as shit.

Behold the continuing absolute stupidity of liberalism. I pray for the day when we stop EBT cards and food stamps. Stop section 8 housing. Unemployment is capped at 12 weeks. Make a baby ? Pay for it or lose it.

I'll look at my coffee table filled with books. Liberals will perish.


Grumpydog is far from stupid.

But if you want to think he is, don't expect me to pick up the pieces.

[GrumpyDog]

Brand new and dumb as shit.

Behold the continuing absolute stupidity of liberalism. I pray for the day when we stop EBT cards and food stamps. Stop section 8 housing. Unemployment is capped at 12 weeks. Make a baby ? Pay for it or lose it.


I apologize. You geese with flapping wings are just too smart for me to comprehend.


I'll look at my coffee table filled with books. Liberals will perish.

Despite what that New Zealander says, GrumpyDog is not smart enough to comprehend what a goose with flapping wings is upset about.

[Awryly]

Honk, honk.

[GrumpyDog]

Now maybe you understand my "fresh perspective" comment.

You'll see a lot of this unfortunately. Groupthink thing.

Not worried. Goose$%^ is a normal expected reaction when criticizing religious convictions.

[patrickt]

The answer is clear. Conservatives buy books and read. When you get all you need to know from White House talking points and Michael Moore mockumentaries, his word, not mine, why read a book?

[Carygrant]

There are some correlations between personality and political beliefs. People with conservative political views tend to have somewhat higher levels of anxiety and tend to consider authority more important (both having it and obeying it). Both are long term traits, so they can be considered personality traits.
Here there are quite a few who are very stressed when competing view points appear . They start becoming personally insulting and generally undergo short term behaviour regression -- move from adult to child or mature to immature vey quickly but mostly anger in short term bursts .

[Mainecoons]

And then there are some who trumpet other people's opinions of books but are too lazy to read them on their own so they might have an informed opinion.

[Chris]

There are some correlations between personality and political beliefs. People with conservative political views tend to have somewhat higher levels of anxiety and tend to consider authority more important (both having it and obeying it). Both are long term traits, so they can be considered personality traits.
Here there are quite a few who are very stressed when competing view points appear . They start becoming personally insulting and generally undergo short term behaviour regression -- move from adult to child or mature to immature vey quickly but mostly anger in short term bursts .

British cons must be the opposite of American cons because mostly what you get from cons here are calls for less authoritarian government and from libs more.

I'd be interested in the source for "There are some correlations between personality and political beliefs." If you read Jonathan Haidt, who has studied this, you will find generally speaking liberals are closed minded and conservatives open minded. See for instance Liberals or Conservatives: Who’s Really Close-Minded? (http://www.american.com/archive/2012/april/liberals-or-conservatives-who2019s-really-close-minded).


Here there are quite a few who are very stressed when competing view points appear . They start becoming personally insulting and generally undergo short term behaviour regression -- move from adult to child or mature to immature vey quickly but mostly anger in short term bursts .

Isn't that what you just did, rather than arguing a point, just insult? I think Jonathan Haidt is right.

[Awryly]

Haidt wrote a fascinating article on why so many Americans vote Republican against their best economic interests.

This is part of what he said:


What makes people vote Republican? Why in particular do working class and rural Americans usually vote for pro-business Republicans when their economic interests would seem better served by Democratic policies? We psychologists have been examining the origins of ideology ever since Hitler sent us Germany's best psychologists, and we long ago reported that strict parenting and a variety of personal insecurities work together to turn people against liberalism, diversity, and progress. But now that we can map the brains, genes, and unconscious attitudes of conservatives, we have refined our diagnosis: conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death. People vote Republican because Republicans offer "moral clarity"—a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with their long-winded explorations of policy options for a complex world. http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html

Look in the mirror and report back.

[Chris]

Haidt wrote a fascinating article on why so many Americans vote Republican against their best economic interests.

This is part of what he said:



Look in the mirror and report back.


Look in the mirror and report back.

Is that supposed to have meaning?

Did you note that you cited Haidt 4 years ago while I cited him this year.

Did you note that you cited irrelevancies about voting Republican? What's the connection between Republican and conservative?

Did you note that the traits you cite for conservatives--"partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death"--are not necessarily negative. They could be stated as a predisposition to principles, ordered, and cautious?

Now let's turn back to Haidt more recently, his latest findings about liberals, if you read the piece I provided, or this piece, Science Asks: Why Can't We All Just Get Along? (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/science-asks-why-cant-we-all-just-get-along/254644/), which explains why liberals are so intolerant, namely their inability see things from others' perpectives, to empathize:

The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the care and fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives. When faced with statements such as "one of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal" or "justice is the most important requirement for a society," liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree.
Haidt theorizes that this kind of blindness to the real motivations of others is driving discord in Washington and around the country.

Did you note that Haidt is neither conservative nor liberal but libertarian?

Perhaps to your "Look in the mirror and report back" I should retort look before you leap as it seems you assume I'm conservative Republican.

[Awryly]

Did you note that the traits you cite for conservatives--"partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death"--are not necessarily negative. They could be stated as a predisposition to principles, ordered, and cautious?

Positive like the collapse of the banking system and endless unwinnable wars. All conducted by conservatives.

Maybe you have a point. Maybe Bush and Cheney weren't real conservatives? Just liberals pretending to be?

[GrumpyDog]

The Liberals are alway misunderestimating Conservatives. It was certainly a mistake to assume that Conservatives would disagree that hurting defenseless animals is wrong. It has been made clear, by Conservatives that defenseless animals should only be killed, not hurt. Prefered method of non painful killing is with high powered rifle from tree perch, while defenseless animal is lured to close range by fake calling or food.

[roadmaster]

The Liberals are alway misunderestimating Conservatives. It was certainly a mistake to assume that Conservatives would disagree that hurting defenseless animals is wrong. It has been made clear, by Conservatives that defenseless animals should only be killed, not hurt. Prefered method of non painful killing is with high powered rifle from tree perch, while defenseless animal is lured to close range by fake calling or food.

So you have something against living off the land? People did this years before we were here.

[Agravan]

The Liberals are alway misunderestimating Conservatives. It was certainly a mistake to assume that Conservatives would disagree that hurting defenseless animals is wrong. It has been made clear, by Conservatives that defenseless animals should only be killed, not hurt. Prefered method of non painful killing is with high powered rifle from tree perch, while defenseless animal is lured to close range by fake calling or food.
So, do you think that the cow that was ground up for your burgers or cut up for your steak just decided to conveniently die for your butcher? Or maybe it committed suicide so that it could end up on your grocer's shelf? How about that sushi that you folks love to eat? Do you think those fish jump into the boat and voluntarily die so that you can enjoy sushi?
People hunt. Animals die for meat. That's life. Deal with it and quit whining.
Nobody wants to see animals suffer, so take your idiotic, pre-conceived notions, and go look at yourself in the mirror, you intolerant, hate-filled, vile liberal.

[roadmaster]

They magically appear on his table.

[Awryly]

So, do you think that the cow that was ground up for your burgers or cut up for your steak just decided to conveniently die for your butcher? Or maybe it committed suicide so that it could end up on your grocer's shelf? How about that sushi that you folks love to eat? Do you think those fish jump into the boat and voluntarily die so that you can enjoy sushi?

People hunt. Animals die for meat. That's life. Deal with it and quit whining.
Nobody wants to see animals suffer, so take your idiotic, pre-conceived notions, and go look at yourself in the mirror, you intolerant, hate-filled, vile liberal.


There you go, GrumpyDog.

Back in your kennel now and ponder on your bad thoughts.

[Shoot the Goose]

Positive like the collapse of the banking system and endless unwinnable wars. All conducted by conservatives.

Maybe you have a point. Maybe Bush and Cheney weren't real conservatives? Just liberals pretending to be?

0-2 dumbass stupid right there.

[patrickt]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Awryly http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=117485#post117485)
"Haidt wrote a fascinating article on why so many Americans vote Republican against their best economic interests."

I know it's difficult for liberals to understand but not all people care only about themselves. I realize voting your own self-interest is paramount with liberals but some of us vote for what is best for your children and grandchildren and sometimes even for what's best for most people and the country as a whole.

Greedy liberals just don't get it. Their best interest is all they care about.

[Peter1469]

Positive like the collapse of the banking system and endless unwinnable wars. All conducted by conservatives.

Maybe you have a point. Maybe Bush and Cheney weren't real conservatives? Just liberals pretending to be?

In case you didn't notice, the banksters are not really political, except in the sense that they manipulate both parties to get what they want. And most wars in US history were democrat (or their predecessors) wars. The GOP (and its predecessors) are traditionally isolationist. That only changed during Vietnam when the "neocons" got fed up with the dems going full-on-weak in national security issues and they bailed and came to the GOP- a very bad day. Take you statists back, please.

Bush and Cheney were Statists, just as surely as Obama.

[Chris]

Positive like the collapse of the banking system and endless unwinnable wars. All conducted by conservatives.

Maybe you have a point. Maybe Bush and Cheney weren't real conservatives? Just liberals pretending to be?

Wow, I didn't know that "collapse of the banking system and endless unwinnable wars" were personality traits!!


Maybe Bush and Cheney weren't real conservatives? Just liberals pretending to be?

Bush was a liberal. Cheney a neocon.


I'll take your response as a non-response.

[Mainecoons]

WHO collapsed the banking system? Better take another look at Dodderer/Fwank while you're at it. How about those zero down loans?

The banking system didn't collapse. Actually, we would have been better off if a couple of these big banks had been allowed to go under. Along with GM. The question is, why did we allow these banks to merge into "too big to fail" to begin with?

BOTH parties screwed the pooch there. Learn more about politics here before you post partisan nonsense. It is particularly tiresome when coming from some foreigner who lives a half a world away and has no experience with America or its politics at all.

[wingrider]

In case you didn't notice, the banksters are not really political, except in the sense that they manipulate both parties to get what they want. And most wars in US history were democrat (or their predecessors) wars. The GOP (and its predecessors) are traditionally isolationist. That only changed during Vietnam when the "neocons" got fed up with the dems going full-on-weak in national security issues and they bailed and came to the GOP- a very bad day. Take you statists back, please.

Bush and Cheney were Statists, just as surely as Obama.
wait .... it was Kennedy and Johnson ( democrats) that got us into vietnam..

[MMC]

Cheney is Neo-Con.....Bush was Statist. Coure Neo-cons were never Republican in the First place!

[Chris]

Neocons were all Republicans. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of the Bush Administration. They were statists because they were neocons.

[Peter1469]

Neocons were dems who left the dem party in disgust over the hippie turn to the left on national security issues. They never lost their love of using the power of the State to enact their agenda.

[wingrider]

cause conservatives are right,

[Chris]

Neocons were dems who left the dem party in disgust over the hippie turn to the left on national security issues. They never lost their love of using the power of the State to enact their agenda.

Irving Kristol, the godfather of neoconservatism, and who coined the phrase a neocon is a liberal who has been mugged by reality, was an ex-Trotskyite, as many of them were. The term probably goes back to the formation of modern conservatism as a fusion between Individualists (classical liberals, later libertarians) and then New Conservatives, ex-liberals and ex-communists who criticized communism in the 1930s. Modern conservatism has an interesting history.