bicker

However, I think the implication the correlation between being educated being liberal in perspective does a disservice to conservatives. It still might be true that education leads people to more liberal (more "compassionate") perspectives, but I think that's a might big leap.

I find that Fox generally leans right, and MSNBC generally leans left; while CNN is fair and balanced. However, increasingly, I've found CNN leaning towards "little guy bias" -- they tend, now, to take whatever side resonates most with their viewers' often-paranoid suspicion of large institutions, as long as it doesn't patently represent a lean to the left.

That never was the case, and never could be the case. The only way to have news unaffected by the bias of those reporting it is to have no reporter, with cameras simply recording events wherever important events may or may not be happening -- no editor to decide which camera footage to show (so the viewer would have to choose, without any indications of what may or may not be important, because that injects the bias of the person making that determination) -- and no camera operator, since even where the camera is pointed could inject bias.

Of course you can be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

That is not accurate.

The purpose of conservatism is to preserve. Fiscal conservatism, therefore, aims to preserve the current financial constructs. Social conservatism, therefore, aims to preserve the current social constructs.

The linkage of fiscal conservatism and social conservatism is a product of the Republican Party, not any necessary linkage between the two.

I vote for whichever candidate best supports my fiscally conservative and socially liberal perspective. I've voted Republicans into office in the past, and happily, most recently Paul Cellucci. I've also voted for Republicans for some local offices (though none of them won).

How would you feel if someone told you that "at your core you are" selfish or bigoted because of your political perspectives? I think it is best if you refrain from statements like, "At your core you are ..." Doing so is inconsiderate -- dare I say incompassionate -- and it isn't your place to pronounce such things with regard to others. Take such stands with regard to yourself, for sure, but those other folks get to declare what they "are" or "are not" -- not you.

I assume you're talking about the 21% of the population that is now willing to identify themselves as Republicans. 79% versus 21%.... which to worry ourselves about.

It is my opinion, and clearly not one you are in a position to refute with facts. (Besides, you left out the quotation marks about "wrong", so I wonder if you even understood the sentence that you made your reply to.) The reality is that the Republicans were in the White House and whoever is in the White House will always be the ones who are doing the most "wrong", because the others aren't in a position to do anything.

Most considerate, I'll gladly agree with. Some very nice people in Utah. The Unitarian Universalist Association of America just had its annual convention in Salt Lake City, and our delegates commented just how nice and polite everyone way, and how hospitable they were. That doesn't have much to do with what we're discussing though.