The top selling book on Amazon (any category)

[truffles 2]

If you like. I don't have to read the book to decide if its something I would want to read. That's why we have blurbs and editorial reviews.

Everyone does it, I don't see why people want to pretend otherwise.

Yes but I am always aware that people may have a slanted (bias) view in a particular way - I havent read it but if I was to take you "review" of the content you posted (your opinion) then I wouldn't bother to read it... an opinion that isnt actually based on reading it for yourself. I am also aware that I can read a book but i dont have to beleive what it has to say if I dont agree - at least any critiscism I have will come from what I actually read and thought out for myself.

[mRx 16]

It's interesting that the Conservatives are trying to steal some ideals from the Libertarians, and call it "Classical Conservatism" . But, they still hold onto their silly Social Conservatism, where the government should force people to act a certain way... This is not Liberty.

How can a proposed, small, limited government perform the Wars on Terror, Drugs, and Immorality while still preserving this so-called liberty?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you like. I don't have to read the book to decide if its something I would want to read. That's why we have blurbs and editorial reviews.

Everyone does it, I don't see why people want to pretend otherwise.

Yes but I am always aware that people may have a slanted (bias) view in a particular way - I havent read it but if I was to take you "review" of the content you posted (your opinion) then I wouldn't bother to read it... an opinion that isnt actually based on reading it for yourself. I am also aware that I can read a book but i dont have to beleive what it has to say if I dont agree - at least any critiscism I have will come from what I actually read and thought out for myself.

You don't have to take my opinion. I'm not forcing it on you.

I don't think talk radio presenters are particularly good political commentators as their material relies on forging an emotional connection with their audience on the basis of shared outrage. There's nothing that suggests this isn't true about this book or its author.

Partisan finger pointing doesn't interest me.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Angry finger pointing garbage. Its probably right up your alley...

Can we have another in-depth review of a media you didn't listen to, read or see?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't need to review something I can tell I'm not going to like.

[Heracles 417]

Angry finger pointing garbage. Its probably right up your alley...

Can we have another in-depth review of a media you didn't listen to, read or see?

That is common with both Pikey and Cleo. They will criticize something they have barely look at. In some cases have not even looked at once. I at least, for example, watched Olbermann a good 15 times before I concluded that all Keith does is spend his time criticizing others and their opposing views. There is also a big difference between discuss / debate vs simply criticizing. Which seems to be the norm nowadays.

Edited April 4, 2009 by Constellation

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

it might have relevance if I had expressed some sort of admiration for olbermann. I don't watch or listen to media personality talking heads.

They do nothing for me.

[truffles 2]

I am reminded of some relatives that constantly complain that they didnt like holidaying abroad - one of the arguments being " we dont like that foreign muck they serve for food" - all this whilst chomping into a pizza?

I wonder where Private Pike actually DOES get his political commentaries from? - now I am intrigue as to what he considers to be "good" sources of information?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you're suggesting that the only place that a person can derive political opinions is through TV commentators and talk radio, I'm not surprised you're finding it confusing.

Oh well.

[웃 910]

How can a proposed, small, limited government perform the Wars on Terror, Drugs, and Immorality while still preserving this so-called liberty?

I'm not sure what you are implying by "small, limited government"? It is very possible to fight wars with a "small" government, IE: NOT SPENDING LIKE OBAMA. Let's look at the cost of the war on terror. A report from the United States Government Accountability Office was just released March 30th, 2009 about the costs of fighting the spread of terrorism. And the numbers are in..............The cost of all activity in Iraq/Afghanistan/the Horn of Africa/the Philippines/and here in the US is.........$808 billion dollars (from 2001 through March of 2009). Now that spending trillions of dollars in one year is a reality of Obama's first year in office; spending $808 billion to annihilate terrorism over 8 years doesn't seem so bad, does it?

Of the $808 billion, $28 billion has been spent on US military operations in defense of the "homeland," under the rubric Operation Noble Eagle. The bulk, $533.5 billion, was spent in Iraq. And $124 billion was spent in Afghanistan ("Operation Enduring Freedom"), the Horn of Africa, and the Philippines. Most of that latter amount, of course, was spent in Afghanistan.

Obamanomics:

The projected FY 2009 deficit is 9.2% of GDP. Obama is going to take the record 2008 Bush deficit ($450 billion) and quadruple it in his first year in office all the while saying he will cut the deficit in half. Okay, he'll cut the deficit in half from 1.8 trillion to 900 billion, but that will still be two times what it was when he took office. The Obama administration's own projections out to 2019 show the deficit never getting back to its 2008 level (YES WE CAN add a few trillion dollars to the national debt in Obama's first two years as president!)

Take a look at a quote from Obama from early August 2008, about Bush's "failed economic policies". Hypocrisy at its finest:

First, we learned that the federal budget deficit could reach nearly half a trillion dollars next year.

Eight years after we had a record surplus, we're now faced with record deficits. This mortgaging of our children's future is a direct result of the Bush Administration's dangerously failed fiscal policies.

Here is a chart from 1981 to 2009 showing the budget as a % of GDP:

Obama's first year in office the deficit will be about 9.2% of GDP which is off the chart! Bottom line is you Dems can complain about whatever you like, but one thing you cannot complain about (EVER) is the costs of anything!

Edited April 4, 2009 by Confucian

[truffles 2]

If you're suggesting that the only place that a person can derive political opinions is through TV commentators and talk radio, I'm not surprised you're finding it confusing.

Oh well.

I am not suggesting that at all...and your reply doesnt answer the question....I am wondering exactly where YOU take your political commentary from...what are the sources that you believe have merit and value...you offer a lot of critiscism but do not offer alternative options?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Am I obligated to do that to validate my opinion on why I wouldn't want to read this book?

No I am not.

[truffles 2]

Am I obligated to do that to validate my opinion on why I wouldn't want to read this book?

No I am not.

LOL...but obligated to trash it ? ..if you read the OP's opening post, it was actually a question for those who HAD read it.

You chose to expound and state you dont listen to talk radio types... I merely wondered (as a serious question) who you DO listen to.

Your right you dont have to validate your opinion.... however others dont have to consider your reply has any value either.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No they don't. But thankfully I'm not emotionally tied to what other people think.

Media talking heads are not news sources. Who needs to identify with such people to have individual opinions?

I don't. Why do you feel that its necessary?

[mRx 16]

How can a proposed, small, limited government perform the Wars on Terror, Drugs, and Immorality while still preserving this so-called liberty?

..............nonsense.................

Wow, who's this idiot? Maybe you should actually read what I wrote, then report back and tell me if I asked for a lecture on the US budget. Nowhere in my post is the word: cost. I merely commented on the hypocrisy of the so called liberty that the Cons are crying for. Arresting individuals for personal drug use, performing invasive security screenings at US airports, and torturing American Citizens in foreign prison camps are not ideals principled in liberty, bud.

But.... oh well, I'll play.

Bush hastily signed the banker's bailout at $700B, did you forget? All the pandering bankers were "feedin' at the troughs!" or "beggin' for a handout!" as you Cons would say.

Or can we blame that on Obama?

Government spending and presence has increased over the last decade, regardless of which political faction presided. I don't believe in the bailout, or the stimulus, or any omnipresent government activity for that matter. Oh, and I'm not a Democrat. So you better go sniffin' elsewhere if you want a Red vs. Blue debate, cowboy.