So, who't this Ryan chap then?
Options
Replies
-
However, you may be a die hard Obama hater in which case let me ask how was your life better under Bush and how do you think it will change from it's present state under Romney?
Why does it have to be compared to Bush? Why does someone have to be a Bush supporter if they don't like Obama? Aren't there just more "generalizations"?
Can't someone simple say Bush screwed me and Obama said he would make it better and is actually making things worse??
I make the comparisons soley on the basis that most conservatives who either supported Bush policies or stayed silent oppose Obama for doing a much of the same stuff. The level of hypocrisy is astounding. Also, they are linked because they were both pioneeers politically, being the first of their kind to occupy the White House. Obama was the first black man and Bush was the first retard.
I particularly annoyed with the hypocrisy HERE in this group. There are plenty of liberals here who rag on Bush yet praise Obama, even when he continues Bush's policies.
We are doomed as a country. BOTH sides are hypocrites and until everyone can move on from that and quite the jabs and name calling (You must watch Fox News because you don't agree with my liberal agenda crap or the Obama birther crap) we will never be able to recover as a country..0 -
I would not even call my job relatively secure, and I get so tired of hearing the notion that Capitalists are heartless, insensitive, money grubbers who want everyone else to suffer.
Like Mandy, I simply believe that my money is mine to keep and do what I choose to do with it. ..
I understand, WildCat. No job is secure these days. And, I too enjoy the routine of American worklife, as it is suppose to be lived and when that work is rewarded appropriately - I don't care if it is peeling a sweet potatoe (the only kind of spud I enjoy these days) or project managing a spaceship. I like having a regular paycheck, being able to drive a decent (not perfect) car, and going an a vacation now and then, same as I like having smooth roads to drive said car, a job to contribute to everyday, on-demand electricity so that I can peel my own spuds, and regular trash pick up to haul the peelings away. What irks me is capitalism run amuck - companys that make a handsome profit but still layoff workers and outsource because they desire, not need, to make more profit. That stinks and it is wrong.
The trouble with Mittens* side-kick Paul Ryan is that while he SAYS he wants to give us more control over our own money, what he ACTS on is giving the corporations more control of your money in the way of deregulation, lack of oversight in all kinds of areas including safety, and all of that. He's NOT working for the middle class but against it. That's why effective wages have gone down down down and people are working more and at lower skill levels than their experience would dictate. Hell, my former company outsourced it's production and then three years later brought it back but without the health benefits and at just above minimum wage. That might be legal but it's far from ethical in my books. Do those workers - either the ones that were laid off during the original outsourcing or the new ones hired when the work was resourced at lower wages and nil benefits - have more or less control over "their" money under these types of laizzes-faire unfair, neoliberal stingy business and government philosophies?
All of the politicians that make it to the top are neoliberals, even beloved Obama, but at least he and his team desire controls and boundaries for the powerful, whereas Mittens and his team want to remake the Wild West out of the business climate. It seems that no politician has been able to run this country since the inroads the Goldwater campaign made that was not a neoliberal, facist, oligarch! :sad: To me this sad fact is less hypocritical than deceptive. We are deceived into thinking we live something entirely different than we do (harken back to the Founding Fathers anyone!), thanks in large part to the relative peace and prosperity this country enjoys.
-Debra
*Thank you SwanneySez for that nickname - I will never look at Romney the same way ever again!!! He's a lot less scary when I call him Mittens.
0 -
However, you may be a die hard Obama hater in which case let me ask how was your life better under Bush and how do you think it will change from it's present state under Romney?
Why does it have to be compared to Bush? Why does someone have to be a Bush supporter if they don't like Obama? Aren't there just more "generalizations"?
Can't someone simple say Bush screwed me and Obama said he would make it better and is actually making things worse??
I make the comparisons soley on the basis that most conservatives who either supported Bush policies or stayed silent oppose Obama for doing a much of the same stuff. The level of hypocrisy is astounding. Also, they are linked because they were both pioneeers politically, being the first of their kind to occupy the White House. Obama was the first black man and Bush was the first retard.
I particularly annoyed with the hypocrisy HERE in this group. There are plenty of liberals here who rag on Bush yet praise Obama, even when he continues Bush's policies.
We are doomed as a country. BOTH sides are hypocrites and until everyone can move on from that and quite the jabs and name calling (You must watch Fox News because you don't agree with my liberal agenda crap or the Obama birther crap) we will never be able to recover as a country..
Oh, I'm in agreement. I have often said here in this group and else where that the Libs have given Obama a pass where the called Bush a Facist for basically the same foreign policy decisions.0 -
Only have a minute so short answer here but do you understand finance? Do you know how IPOs work? They are almost always substantially higher on their IPO/within a few days than they are after even a few weeks.
Obamacare will cost money. However, it costs money to have people treat emergency rooms like clinics. All medical care costs money. I just think it's worth a few dollars to keep people alive. I'm pro choice but pro life after they are born. Too bad RR can't say the same or even be pro life after birth. Instead it's "A zygote is a person who deserves all the rights thereof!" then once it's born it's a welfare leech sho should just hurry up and die already.
And fnally, I'm not a liberal but I do love how the righties like to generalize and exaggerate. It's amusing in a sad, pathetic sort of way. I'm actually an independant. I voted McCain in 08. I woted McCain in the primary in 2000. I lived in AZ for 5 years and voted for him every time. I also voted for Sheriff Joe and I think Brewer has done a pretty decent job. In fact, over the past decade I've voted R much more often than not. But the GOP aren't Republicans anymore. I loved Reagan and voted for him too (my first POTUS election actually) But Republicans have turned away from fiscal responsibility and smaller government. Now they are Gays, Guns, and God. They demand fiscal responsibility from the poor and middle class but love the idea of corporate welfare and tax cuts for millionaires. They Bible thump and claim that this is a Christian nation with laws based on the Bible. Reagan would be a liberal hippie by their standards today. He probably wouldn't even pass their "requirements" to make it through the primaries. Give me a Reagan or Goldwater and I'll vote R again. Keep throwing out Romneys and Cantors and Bachmanns and I may well just pull the D lever and call it a day.
GM's IPO occurred back in 2010 not a few weeks ago. Yes I do understand finance. Do you? For example. Google had an IPO price of 85 dollars and 2 years later it was trading around $370. GM's IPO in 2010 was $33. It is now around $20.
IPOs (and stocks in general, for that matter) have little bearing in a company's actual value, but rather, a perceived value. It's this perceived value that is a big catalyst for these economic issues. (Remember, it was the crashing of the stock market on Black Tuesday, that started the Great Depression to begin with. The week prior was rocky, which started prompting people to sell, the more people sold, the more others sold, and it spiraled from there.)
Case in point - Facebook. They IPO'd at $38. Today's stock price (as of this writing)? $19.80. The IPO was based on a perceived value, but has declined as shareholders realize that Facebook already has a very high market saturation, which means it doesn't have much growth potential with its current strategy, even though, as a private company, Facebook is hugely successful. I suspect it will continue to decline until they can come up with a revenue model that will make the shareholders happy.
Another good example - Apple. Prior to the Windows Vista launch, they were somewhere around $50. After Vista launch, they were in the $200 ballpark. I suspect we'll see a similar jump when WIndows 8 launches. It also fluctuated when Jobs passed away. The change had nothing to do with any changes in the company's quality of product, or actual performance, but a speculation of how well it will do in the coming months.0 -
To get back on topic, Ryan has ideas to save the entitlement programs which if left unchanged will go bankrupt in a number of years. He has co-sponsored a bill with Senator Wyden (D) on Medicare reform proving he is open to working with Democrats on tackling the real issues.
Ryan is not interested in "saving" anything--his plans are nothing more than the first (and not so first) steps at dismantling them completely. You are free to agree with that position, but it is dishonest IMO to pretend that it is anything different.
And recent comments by Senator Wyden differ substantially (like 180 degrees) from your last statement. When Romney recently stated that Ryan and Wyden has co-sponsored legislation, Wyden replied:“Governor Romney is talking nonsense," Wyden said in an emailed statement Saturday night. "Bipartisanship requires that you not make up the facts. I did not ‘co-lead a piece of legislation.' I wrote a policy paper on options for Medicare."
In an earlier piece, Wyden also disabused the notion that he was working with Ryan on any legislative approach:In the opinion piece, the Oregon senator clearly stated that the Wyden-Ryan approach was “simply a policy paper intended to start a conversation about how Democrats and Republicans might work together to uphold the Medicare Guarantee" and made it clear the proposal would in no way eliminate the traditional Medicare plan.0 -
Talking ealier about why we vote and for what made me think of this old Bill Hicks video talking about GHWB.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j_2pHFlDgY 0 -
But here is the interesting question, one I find myself facing often in politics. If Ryan is offering you a tax cut, but is opposite of you socially like with gay marriage or a seperation of church and state....are you willing to to trample civil liberties for some cash?
Thank you for bringing this up - I'm genuinely interested in responses, especially of fiscal conservatives that may not be so socially conservative.
Bottom line, is that if that money were back in my hands and I wanted to use it to help Planned Parenthood provide services for women without the means to do it themselves, I could.
I also write my congresspeople, local and state level, and let them know how I feel about the job they are doing. Typically they are asking for them to remain focused on the economic issues facing our country over the social issues.
Libertarians believe in personal liberty more than any other party. And for me personally, I know it would take a LOT for Roe-v-Wade to ever be overturned in the Supreme Court. I also feel that abortion and immigration issues should be decided at the state level. I'm more of a Statist. If those social issues were decided at the state level, we could focus more on those elections that affect us day to day.0 -
Also, they are linked because they were both pioneeers politically, being the first of their kind to occupy the White House. Obama was the first black man and Bush was the first retard.
Wow. Do we really go here on this site?
What rock do you live under that you don't understand that is not an acceptable word to use flippantly?
I'm pretty un-PC as they come, but this statement crosses a line. I cannot take anything you say seriously after seeing you write this.0 -
Also, they are linked because they were both pioneeers politically, being the first of their kind to occupy the White House. Obama was the first black man and Bush was the first retard.
Wow. Do we really go here on this site?
What rock do you live under that you don't understand that is not an acceptable word to use flippantly?
I'm pretty un-PC as they come, but this statement crosses a line. I cannot take anything you say seriously after seeing you write this.
I appologize. I'll rewrite it do appease your sensitivity.
Also, they are linked because they were both pioneeers politically, being the first of their kind to occupy the White House. Obama was the first African-American man and Bush was the first retard.0 -
Also, they are linked because they were both pioneeers politically, being the first of their kind to occupy the White House. Obama was the first black man and Bush was the first retard.
Wow. Do we really go here on this site?
What rock do you live under that you don't understand that is not an acceptable word to use flippantly?
I'm pretty un-PC as they come, but this statement crosses a line. I cannot take anything you say seriously after seeing you write this.
I appologize. I'll rewrite it do appease your sensitivity.
Also, they are linked because they were both pioneeers politically, being the first of their kind to occupy the White House. Obama was the first African-American man and Bush was the first retard.
Oh. My. :laugh: I just about choked on my water.. You make me speechless.
Wildcat, you and Adrian are two of my favorites on my friends list! I hate that we all can't agree on everything.
0 -
Also, they are linked because they were both pioneeers politically, being the first of their kind to occupy the White House. Obama was the first black man and Bush was the first retard.
Wow. Do we really go here on this site?
What rock do you live under that you don't understand that is not an acceptable word to use flippantly?
I'm pretty un-PC as they come, but this statement crosses a line. I cannot take anything you say seriously after seeing you write this.
I appologize. I'll rewrite it do appease your sensitivity.
Also, they are linked because they were both pioneeers politically, being the first of their kind to occupy the White House. Obama was the first African-American man and Bush was the first retard.
Epic :drinker:0 -
Which is what the liberal mainstream media wants you to believe but then again they've had years of practice trying to spin Obama's "accomplishments".
I can't stand when someone disagrees with you and they throw this out there. :explode: As a libertarian, I get it so often and haven't even had cable tv in years! I don't watch Fox news as they are incredibly biased. Just as MSNBC is incredibly biased to the left and will even admit it as Fox does. Some of us just think for ourselves rather than depending on an unreliable news source. Any prime news station is biased and spins every story they cover.
I agree. I get it all the time too... And I haven't turned on Fox News in I don't know how long. It's been years though since I have watched cable news or really anything other than local news, because I am never home and there are more interesting things to watch than over-zealous pundits who think they are smarter than everyone and that their opinion is the only one to be had.0 -
You can't make fun of Paul Ryan's work history without making a mockery of Joe Biden's.
* 1969 - 1973 Lawyer
* 1970 - 1973 New Castle County Council
* 1973 - 2009 US Senate
* 2008 - Current US Vice President
Somehow Biden was more qualified then Ryan when he was announced as Obama's VP choice? Really? He certainly racked up the years in the Senate. He had one year of private work before he got sick of it and ran for a county council seat.
At some point people started comparing Ryan's job history with Obama's for some reason like it was relevant. How about comparing Romney's job history with Obama's? You may not like the results of Romney's job history but you have to admit he was very successful in the private sector. I would go into it more but I am not motivated and have to get to work. Maybe after 4 more years of Obama I will be unemployed and have more time for this banter
.
In Joe Biden's lawerly work years, you fail to mention that he was a "public defender". What, pray tell, has Ryan ever defended save his own skin, so much so that his own bishops denouce his scrooge soul? Ryan's fiscal vision for America proposes to drastically reduce Medicaid, ignore our failing infrastructure and by default give the global economic race to China, our number one competitor. What can you say that Mr. Ryan has done that bespeaks value for Americas number one resource - her people - instead of her corporations?
There are two clear choices in the upcoming election - a vote that support and builds up the middle-class in America (Obama/Biden) or a vote that further erodes and destroys it (R&R). Only one ticket in 2012 consistently logged more work hours defending the poor and vulnerable - Obama's years as an effective community organizer in Chicago and Biden's as a public defender, not to mention his years as a single father commuting by train 1-1/2 hours each way each day.
-Debra
Or better yet, not vote for the status quo... because when we get down to it, Democrats and Republicans are different sides to the same coin.0 -
The rich pay a lower effective tax rate then the middle class generally because they derive so much of their income from capital gains which is taxed at a lower rate the income. If you have a problem with the rich paying a lower effective rate then ***** about capital gains taxes. By the way, no tax plan from republicans or democrats makes the capital gains rate equal with the income tax rate so the rich will continue paying a lower effective rate under Obama.
True statement, but very misleading. Romney is proposing a cut in capital gains taxes, while Obama favors letting the already scheduled increase take place.President Barack Obama and Republican opponent Mitt Romney want to move the top capital gains tax rate in opposite directions, with a single number emphasizing their divisions on economic and fiscal policy.
Romney proposes keeping the current 15 percent capital gains rate for the estimated 2 percent of households making more than $200,000 a year and eliminating investment taxes for everyone else. Obama wants the rate to rise to 23.8 percent as scheduled in 2013.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-30/capital-gains-fault-line-as-obama-romney-tax-plans-differ.html
If the problem is undertaxation of capital gains, Obama is working to reduce the problem, while Romney wants to make it worse.0 -
But here is the interesting question, one I find myself facing often in politics. If Ryan is offering you a tax cut, but is opposite of you socially like with gay marriage or a seperation of church and state....are you willing to to trample civil liberties for some cash?
And that my friend is why I vote for the most libertarian candidate, that isn't a complete anarchist.0 -
The rich pay a lower effective tax rate then the middle class generally because they derive so much of their income from capital gains which is taxed at a lower rate the income. If you have a problem with the rich paying a lower effective rate then ***** about capital gains taxes. By the way, no tax plan from republicans or democrats makes the capital gains rate equal with the income tax rate so the rich will continue paying a lower effective rate under Obama.
True statement, but very misleading. Romney is proposing a cut in capital gains taxes, while Obama favors letting the already scheduled increase take place.President Barack Obama and Republican opponent Mitt Romney want to move the top capital gains tax rate in opposite directions, with a single number emphasizing their divisions on economic and fiscal policy.
Romney proposes keeping the current 15 percent capital gains rate for the estimated 2 percent of households making more than $200,000 a year and eliminating investment taxes for everyone else. Obama wants the rate to rise to 23.8 percent as scheduled in 2013.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-30/capital-gains-fault-line-as-obama-romney-tax-plans-differ.html
If the problem is undertaxation of capital gains, Obama is working to reduce the problem, while Romney wants to make it worse.
As it stands right now, the current capital gains rate is 15%. If Obama gets re-elected then it will go up to 18.8% since 3.8% will get added in 2013 from Obamacare. If Obama allows the Bush tax cuts to lapse then it will go to 23.8%. I really do not see Congress letting Obama keep some of the Bush tax cuts and not all of it. Obama will either have to let the cuts lapse which would cause a middle class tax increase that he would blame on republicans or he will extend the Bush tax cuts as is which will keep the capital gains rate at 18.8%. The more I think about it the more sense it makes that Obama would just let the Bush tax cuts lapse. He couldn't do it in an election year but why not next year when people have four years to forget about it.
If Romney gets elected he would kill Obamacare which would kill the automatic increase to the capital gains rate and he would extend (or modify) the bush tax cut which would probably keep the rate at 15%.
In the end, the rich will still not pay as much of a percentage on their income as someone pulling a 9 to 5 in some factory or whatever.0 -
Romney's tax plan lowers the tax rate on everyone. It is supposed to be revenue neutral. In order to be revenue neutral, biased groups have surmised that he will achieve this by removing so many deductions that the middle class ends up with a tax increase. Anyone who actually believes Romney would raise taxes on the middle class while lowering taxes on the rich is crazy. It would guarantee he would only get one term assuming he actually got elected. It fits in with the liberal talking point that republicans hate the middle class so that is why we keep hearing it. What is more likely to happen is Romney either removes the revenue neutral requirement or he cuts spending. That doesn't sound as good as ROMNEY HATES THE MIDDLE CLASS OMG>!
This seems to be an admission that Romney's numbers don't add up, that his tax plan cannot remain revenue neutral without eliminating deductions that benefit the middle class. (In other words, to pay for his rate cuts and remain revenue neutral, he would have to broaden the base in ways that would see the a net increase for middle class Americans.) You seem to be saying that you realize that Romney is lying about his plan being revenue neutral.
Of course, Ryan as much as admitted that Romney's numbers don't add up . . . or that they don't exist. When asked when Romney's plan achieves a balanced budget, he said, "I don't know exactly what the balance is. I don't want to get wonky on you, but we haven't run the numbers on that specific plan." http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/15/politics/ryan-budget/
I don't understand what you mean by the "or" in "What is more likely to happen is Romney either removes the revenue neutral requirement or he cuts spending." His tax plan is either revenue neutral or it is not. Spending has nothing to do with that question. But since you brought it up, did you happen to see Romney discussing what he will cut to balance the budget?“[F]irst, there are programs I would eliminate. Obamacare being one of them but also various subsidy programs — the Amtrak subsidy, the PBS subsidy, the subsidy for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities. . ."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/15/its-not-clear-what-romney-would-actually-cut-to-make-his-budget-add-up/
It's hard to take someone seriously when they spew nonsense like that. Repealing Obamacare makes costs money, about $34 billion in 2013 according to the CBO. And the other things he mentioned are all a fart in a hurricane:In fiscal year 2012, the federal government spent $1.42 billion on Amtrak, $444 million on PBS, and $146 million on the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. Getting rid of all these subsidies would have saved the government about $2 billion this year — chump change relative to the scale of cuts that Romney wants.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/15/its-not-clear-what-romney-would-actually-cut-to-make-his-budget-add-up/
If he's planning to make cuts to close a trillion dollar deficit, he owes us more than cuts that total 0.2% of that. To solve a trillion dollar problem, he's giving hundred million dollar solutions.0 -
Which is what the liberal mainstream media wants you to believe but then again they've had years of practice trying to spin Obama's "accomplishments".
I can't stand when someone disagrees with you and they throw this out there. :explode: As a libertarian, I get it so often and haven't even had cable tv in years! I don't watch Fox news as they are incredibly biased. Just as MSNBC is incredibly biased to the left and will even admit it as Fox does. Some of us just think for ourselves rather than depending on an unreliable news source. Any prime news station is biased and spins every story they cover.
I agree. I get it all the time too... And I haven't turned on Fox News in I don't know how long. It's been years though since I have watched cable news or really anything other than local news, because I am never home and there are more interesting things to watch than over-zealous pundits who think they are smarter than everyone and that their opinion is the only one to be had.
Hypocrites.
The person who made the original statement accused me of being a victim of "liberal media bias" because he disagreed with me, and you get mad at me for retorting with EXACTLY the same argument?
P.S. Fox News still claims to be unbiased (re: still claim that "fair and balanced" is their way of doing business). At least MSNBC makes no qualms about being liberals. Oh, and NO news source is unbiased, even print media or your lovely libertarian news sources. You don't have to watch a pundit to get biased news. It's everywhere. Anyone who honestly believes that there exists news that is unbiased is delusional.0 -
Only have a minute so short answer here but do you understand finance? Do you know how IPOs work? They are almost always substantially higher on their IPO/within a few days than they are after even a few weeks.
Obamacare will cost money. However, it costs money to have people treat emergency rooms like clinics. All medical care costs money. I just think it's worth a few dollars to keep people alive. I'm pro choice but pro life after they are born. Too bad RR can't say the same or even be pro life after birth. Instead it's "A zygote is a person who deserves all the rights thereof!" then once it's born it's a welfare leech sho should just hurry up and die already.
And fnally, I'm not a liberal but I do love how the righties like to generalize and exaggerate. It's amusing in a sad, pathetic sort of way. I'm actually an independant. I voted McCain in 08. I woted McCain in the primary in 2000. I lived in AZ for 5 years and voted for him every time. I also voted for Sheriff Joe and I think Brewer has done a pretty decent job. In fact, over the past decade I've voted R much more often than not. But the GOP aren't Republicans anymore. I loved Reagan and voted for him too (my first POTUS election actually) But Republicans have turned away from fiscal responsibility and smaller government. Now they are Gays, Guns, and God. They demand fiscal responsibility from the poor and middle class but love the idea of corporate welfare and tax cuts for millionaires. They Bible thump and claim that this is a Christian nation with laws based on the Bible. Reagan would be a liberal hippie by their standards today. He probably wouldn't even pass their "requirements" to make it through the primaries. Give me a Reagan or Goldwater and I'll vote R again. Keep throwing out Romneys and Cantors and Bachmanns and I may well just pull the D lever and call it a day.
GM's IPO occurred back in 2010 not a few weeks ago. Yes I do understand finance. Do you? For example. Google had an IPO price of 85 dollars and 2 years later it was trading around $370. GM's IPO in 2010 was $33. It is now around $20.
IPOs (and stocks in general, for that matter) have little bearing in a company's actual value, but rather, a perceived value. It's this perceived value that is a big catalyst for these economic issues. (Remember, it was the crashing of the stock market on Black Tuesday, that started the Great Depression to begin with. The week prior was rocky, which started prompting people to sell, the more people sold, the more others sold, and it spiraled from there.)
Case in point - Facebook. They IPO'd at $38. Today's stock price (as of this writing)? $19.80. The IPO was based on a perceived value, but has declined as shareholders realize that Facebook already has a very high market saturation, which means it doesn't have much growth potential with its current strategy, even though, as a private company, Facebook is hugely successful. I suspect it will continue to decline until they can come up with a revenue model that will make the shareholders happy.
Another good example - Apple. Prior to the Windows Vista launch, they were somewhere around $50. After Vista launch, they were in the $200 ballpark. I suspect we'll see a similar jump when WIndows 8 launches. It also fluctuated when Jobs passed away. The change had nothing to do with any changes in the company's quality of product, or actual performance, but a speculation of how well it will do in the coming months.
Have you ever heard of a P/E ratio?
Ummmm..... are you saying Apple launched Windows Vista?0 -
Which is what the liberal mainstream media wants you to believe but then again they've had years of practice trying to spin Obama's "accomplishments".
I can't stand when someone disagrees with you and they throw this out there. :explode: As a libertarian, I get it so often and haven't even had cable tv in years! I don't watch Fox news as they are incredibly biased. Just as MSNBC is incredibly biased to the left and will even admit it as Fox does. Some of us just think for ourselves rather than depending on an unreliable news source. Any prime news station is biased and spins every story they cover.
I agree. I get it all the time too... And I haven't turned on Fox News in I don't know how long. It's been years though since I have watched cable news or really anything other than local news, because I am never home and there are more interesting things to watch than over-zealous pundits who think they are smarter than everyone and that their opinion is the only one to be had.
Hypocrites.
The person who made the original statement accused me of being a victim of "liberal media bias" because he disagreed with me, and you get mad at me for retorting with EXACTLY the same argument?
P.S. Fox News still claims to be unbiased (re: still claim that "fair and balanced" is their way of doing business). At least MSNBC makes no qualms about being liberals. Oh, and NO news source is unbiased, even print media or your lovely libertarian news sources. You don't have to watch a pundit to get biased news. It's everywhere. Anyone who honestly believes that there exists news that is unbiased is delusional.
It's probably because the whole "Oh you watch Fox News" is used as a retort more often and loudly... at least that has been my experience and at least up until Sarah Palin started whining... and I don't know where anyone has stated that any news is unbiased. Mandy's last sentence in her post stated as much (to which I agree). And there are Libertarian news sources? Please name me one (that isn't a blog and is a respected news source)... because most lean right or left... as I am ignorant of such sources (the Cato institute doesn't count because it's not a news source as it is a policy think tank... and even they are becoming less Libertarian thanks to the lovely Koch brothers).
Personally, I'm tired of everyone thinking their choice of news source is the end all and be all of information. Whether it be the New York Times or Fox News.0
