>You know I hear people talk about liberal media all the time, but I've
>never seen any... they're all owned by stockholders & whatnot who are
>by and large conservative people. Liberal ideas get through to print
>or television once in a while, but usually so they can be demonized.
>
That isn't a 100% true anymore. Generally the ultra-quick wealthy are
thought to be liberal. The classic example is a Hollywood. Some of the
luckier dot com millionaires are considered to be liberal as well. These
type of people are large stock holders. WSJ also said there are a lot of
Dems on Wall St too. They fit into the "I got really rich really
quickly." If I could read mind, I think I could hear them say "I'm rich
Biatch" David Chappelle voice included. The WSJ thinks its because these
people are able to hold onto their youthful ideals before time hardens
them. Well maybe not liberal-liberal but more Democratic especially
because the younger professionals are often against the Republican stance
of anti-cloning and anti-stem cell research. BTW the last two items also
gives the Dem a huge advantage in fund raising as universities are
definitly against any sort of anti-research stance.
Check out http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?Ind=W to see
the impact of it? Of course, Berkely and Harvard are two of your most
liberal universities. But the inclusions of some of the other universities
surely illustrates the impact of these two items.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
