Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   When you think Speaker Boehner is a "tax-and-spend liberal," you may need to reevaluate your current grasp on reality   (thehill.com) divider line 205
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

2703 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Dec 2013 at 5:47 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



205 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-14 01:05:21 PM  
Remember when Soros co-opted the OWS movement, and bankrolled all their demonstrations? And then got MSNBC to inflate their numbers and run ads supporting them? Good times.
 
2013-12-14 01:31:39 PM  
Dusk-You-n-Me:

This makes no sense. "further hands a government endorsed economic monopoly? The hell?


Pretty simple, actually. Raising the minimum wage hurts those that are the least 'diversified'. For example, a large corporation with multiple revenue streams can pass increased costs to consumers while the local Mom and Pop has no such option. It's the same thing Wal-Mart does; when they arrive in a new community, they run at a loss until the competition dies while making it up somewhere else. Smaller businesses often run on tighter spreads, so a raise in the minimum kills them while large corporations lose the competition. Why do you think big business supports the regulatory State so much? It's because the regulations kill small businesses. 

Besides, the minimum wage makes no sense whatsoever. Aside from the fact it is essentially outlawing low-paying jobs (it never fails to amaze me how economic liberals imagine the corporate big dogs going "Ah shiat, I guess I have to cut into my profits now to pay my workers more! They finally got me!!" Grow up. They just pass the cost onto consumers.) why are you such misers?

If the minimum wage is so great and has no downside to the economy, why not take it up to $25/50/100/500 bucks an hour? Why not decree a minimum of 150K/year for everyone?
 
2013-12-14 01:43:27 PM  

jpbreon: Besides, the minimum wage makes no sense whatsoever.


Oh. Well this isn't going to go well.

jpbreon: If the minimum wage is so great and has no downside to the economy, why not take it up to $25/50/100/500 bucks an hour? Why not decree a minimum of 150K/year for everyone?


People really need to stop using this idiotic argument. I'm sure I'll see it in the next minimum wage thread. Best of luck.
 
2013-12-14 01:45:25 PM  

jpbreon: Pretty simple, actually. Raising the minimum wage hurts those that are the least 'diversified'. For example, a large corporation with multiple revenue streams can pass increased costs to consumers while the local Mom and Pop has no such option. It's the same thing Wal-Mart does; when they arrive in a new community, they run at a loss until the competition dies while making it up somewhere else. Smaller businesses often run on tighter spreads, so a raise in the minimum kills them while large corporations lose the competition. Why do you think big business supports the regulatory State so much? It's because the regulations kill small businesses. 

Besides, the minimum wage makes no sense whatsoever. Aside from the fact it is essentially outlawing low-paying jobs (it never fails to amaze me how economic liberals imagine the corporate big dogs going "Ah shiat, I guess I have to cut into my profits now to pay my workers more! They finally got me!!" Grow up. They just pass the cost onto consumers.) why are you such misers?

If the minimum wage is so great and has no downside to the economy, why not take it up to $25/50/100/500 bucks an hour? Why not decree a minimum of 150K/year for everyone?


Are you trolling or an idiot?
 
2013-12-14 01:59:06 PM  

jpbreon: If the minimum wage is so great and has no downside to the economy, why not take it up to $25/50/100/500 bucks an hour?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

stop doing that.
 
m00
2013-12-14 01:59:59 PM  

dripping with sarcasm: The tea party position is keep my bennies coming and cut off the other guy and I want to pay(tax) less. Oh, and support the troops until they come home. Yea, murica!


That's the tea party position the same way that "helping terrorists win to institute socialism and death panels" is the liberal position. Meaning, if you form your opinion about a group based on the literature of those opposed to that group then you get a distorted view.
 
m00
2013-12-14 02:04:18 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: This makes no sense. "further hands a government endorsed economic monopoly? The hell?


Yes. Many regulations, including minimum wage, actually help wealthy corporations get wealthier (because of everything going on in the rest of the system). That's the problem.

Dusk-You-n-Me: 80% of the Tea Party oppose raising taxes on the rich, compared with 56% of the GOP.


I don't know where you get this figure. But ending corporate handouts is part of the tea party platform.

I don't know what mythical Tea Party you think you're supporting. You may want to recheck their platform. And then check the progressive platform, because it actually does reduce corporate welfare and make the wealthy pay more.

Really? We've had almost 6 years of Obama plus a Senate Democrat majority plus for the first two years a House Democrat majority. Why have the rich gotten (a whole lot) richer? And everyone else gotten poorer. Republicans? Are Republicans SO powerful that even when they control ZERO branches of government they still dictate policy? Think about that.
 
2013-12-14 02:05:19 PM  

m00: That's the tea party position the same way that "helping terrorists win to institute socialism and death panels" is the liberal position.


Um, no, that's actually based on the Paul Ryan budget.
 
m00
2013-12-14 02:06:33 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Are you trolling or an idiot?


I actually think raising minimum wage would be a good idea if it was bundled with closing corporate tax loopholes (meaning handouts), ending regulations that favor big business, and generally getting corporations out of policy making.
 
m00
2013-12-14 02:08:52 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Um, no, that's actually based on the Paul Ryan budget


Have you personally read the Paul Ryan budget, or are you basing your opinion on someone else's analysis / commentary, that was featured in an article for a publication whose opinions you generally agree with (and therefore are inclined to read).
 
m00
2013-12-14 02:12:51 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Um, no, that's actually based on the Paul Ryan budget.


I would humbly suggest that if you want to be critical of the Ryan budget (which is entirely valid), you read it and form your own opinions.

http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf
 
2013-12-14 02:13:35 PM  

m00: cameroncrazy1984: Um, no, that's actually based on the Paul Ryan budget

Have you personally read the Paul Ryan budget, or are you basing your opinion on someone else's analysis / commentary, that was featured in an article for a publication whose opinions you generally agree with (and therefore are inclined to read).


I've read it. It cuts taxes, raises military spending and doesn't close the deficit.
 
2013-12-14 02:13:48 PM  

m00: Yes. Many regulations, including minimum wage, actually help wealthy corporations get wealthier (because of everything going on in the rest of the system). That's the problem.


You make this statement and the evidence is "because of everything going on in the rest of the system". That's not evidence. If you want to reduce inequality, pay labor more. It's not a difficult concept.

m00: But ending corporate handouts is part of the tea party platform.


Except the corporate welfare that arises when workers are paid so little they have to go on government assistance just to get by. A couple billion to Walmart's profits at your tax dollar expense. By not advocating for a higher minimum wage, this is what you are implicitly endorsing. You are on the side of corporate welfare.

m00: Really? We've had almost 6 years of Obama plus a Senate Democrat majority plus for the first two years a House Democrat majority. Why have the rich gotten (a whole lot) richer?


Because Obama isn't a progressive. Neither are most congressional democrats. The progressive caucus isn't all that large, chief. Most Democrats are 'centrist', otherwise known as Republicans. Which is why we saw taxes go up on the wealthiest, but the bar raised from $250K to $400K. A progressive President wouldn't have gone for that. He also wouldn't be begging the GOP to help him pass chained-CPI. Obama ain't no liberal.
 
2013-12-14 02:14:33 PM  
Also LOL at the idea that to be critical of Ryan's budget you must have read it from some liberal mainstream MSM media source that doesn't like Ryan and is out to get him.
 
2013-12-14 02:15:16 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Except the corporate welfare that arises when workers are paid so little they have to go on government assistance just to get by. A couple billion to Walmart's profits at your tax dollar expense


This, in my opinion, is the best argument for raising the minimum wage. Don't want to subsidize Wal-Mart with your tax dollars? Raise the minimum wage.
 
m00
2013-12-14 02:33:25 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Also LOL at the idea that to be critical of Ryan's budget you must have read it from some liberal mainstream MSM media source that doesn't like Ryan and is out to get him.


There are a lot of valid criticisms one may have of the Ryan Budget. This isn't one of them: The tea party position is keep my bennies coming and cut off the other guy and I want to pay(tax) less. Oh, and support the troops until they come home. Yea, murica!

Just saying. Most people that have a strong opinion of the Ryan budget haven't even skimmed it. I get that it's a 100 page document. But it's okay not to have an opinion on something because you haven't gotten around to reading it.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where opinion merchants reign. People want to have an opinion, but don't have the time or energy to dig into the million things people are debating. So they go watch Bill O'Reilly or Anderson Cooper or  Rachel Maddow or read Huffington Post or Breitbart and get told what opinion they should have. I think it's not only destroying public discourse, but it's blurring the line between reality and conjecture.
 
m00
2013-12-14 02:37:42 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: You make this statement and the evidence is "because of everything going on in the rest of the system". That's not evidence. If you want to reduce inequality, pay labor more. It's not a difficult concept.


No, if you want to reduce inequality you stop taxing cap gains at 15% (or 0% if you're really wealthy) and labor at 30%. If you want to stop inequality you stop giving corporations like GE 2 billion dollars a year, while regulating the hell out of the local mom & pop deli. Raising minimum wage is like if thief steals your car the cops, instead of arresting him and giving you the car back, force him to buy you a skateboard.

Dusk-You-n-Me: Because Obama isn't a progressive. Neither are most congressional democrats.


I accept this as an answer. But if you are a progressive, you should stop voting Democrat. (And conservatives should stop voting Republican).
 
2013-12-14 02:45:53 PM  
m00:
Just saying. Most people that have a strong opinion of the Ryan budget haven't even skimmed it.

Just saying, that's a generalization based on what you wish was happening.
 
2013-12-14 02:46:58 PM  

m00: No, if you want to reduce inequality you stop taxing cap gains at 15% (or 0% if you're really wealthy) and labor at 30%. If you want to stop inequality you stop giving corporations like GE 2 billion dollars a year, while regulating the hell out of the local mom & pop deli. Raising minimum wage is like if thief steals your car the cops, instead of arresting him and giving you the car back, force him to buy you a skateboard.


No it isn't, that's an absolutely ridiculous analogy.

Of course, you can do both; raise the cap gains tax, lower taxes on the middle and lower classes, raise taxes on the top 1% and raise the minimum wage. ALL of that will help reduce income and wealth inequality.
 
m00
2013-12-14 02:55:22 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Just saying, that's a generalization based on what you wish was happening.


You're HONESTLY going to tell me that the majority of people who have an opinion -- one way or another -- on the Ryan Budget have read the 100 page document?
 
2013-12-14 02:57:29 PM  

m00: cameroncrazy1984: Just saying, that's a generalization based on what you wish was happening.

You're HONESTLY going to tell me that the majority of people who have an opinion -- one way or another -- on the Ryan Budget have read the 100 page document?


Are you HONESTLY going to tell me that to have an opinion on a document people have to have read the entire thing? And that necessarily an opinion is wrong if it is based on solid analysis?
 
2013-12-14 02:58:04 PM  
I would wager that  m00 has an opinion on the ACA, but I bet he hasn't read all 2700 pages of it. Therefore his opinion is wrong, no matter what it is.
 
m00
2013-12-14 03:02:13 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: No it isn't, that's an absolutely ridiculous analogy.


It's a very accurate analogy. The large corporations (really in specific sectors) are stealing the wealth of this country. They do this with the help of the government who writes foreign and domestic policy specifically to aid large corporations in these sectors. There are innumerable examples from energy bills, to trade policy with China, to even the ACA. The vast, vast, vast, vast majority of this wealth that is extracted from the US economy is not reinvested. The problem with tackling things from the wage side is that there are plenty of small and medium sizes corporations that are also struggling, as they are not the beneficiaries of the pro-wealthy policy. Raising the minimum wage hurts them further.

But yeah raising the minimum wage from $10 to $15 isn't going to make a dent in wage inequality, especially because it will just get taxed away and given back to the rich again. The most it will do is sink some corner markets.
 
2013-12-14 03:02:16 PM  

dave2198: Empty Matchbook: Fuggin Bizzy: It's like watching gladiators fight. I don't really give a shiat who wins, as long as it's bloody.

Lie in the bed you made for yourselves, GOP. You should have kicked these loonies to the curb immediately instead of flirting with them.

Advice I wish I'd taken in college...

Never stick your Boehner in crazy.


Best advice to give, hardest to follow.

/what she said
 
2013-12-14 03:04:46 PM  

m00: The large corporations (really in specific sectors) are stealing the wealth of this country. They do this with the help of the government who writes foreign and domestic policy specifically to aid large corporations in these sectors


Sure, but it's not stealing to require them to pay their employees a minimum wage. As I've said before, I think we should do both. Why can't we pay Americans enough to live on? What is so wrong about that?
 
m00
2013-12-14 03:07:49 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: I would wager that  m00 has an opinion on the ACA, but I bet he hasn't read all 2700 pages of it. Therefore his opinion is wrong, no matter what it is.


I've skimmed it, and read parts. My opinion on the ACA is that it benefits insurance companies, and it if it's going to accomplish its goals (aka benefit people who aren't corporations) there needs to be a public option. But my only strong objection to it is philosophical -- that it compels people to enter into a private contract. So they should have just taxed people, and provided insurance if they're going to go that route.

But I agree it's very hard to get the picture on a law as complex as the ACA, so I don't fault people for thinking it will work / not work. The success of initiatives that massive is all in the details, and there is a lot of them.
 
2013-12-14 03:11:06 PM  

m00: 've skimmed it, and read parts. My opinion on the ACA is that it benefits insurance companies, and it if it's going to accomplish its goals (aka benefit people who aren't corporations) there needs to be a public option. But my only strong objection to it is philosophical -- that it compels people to enter into a private contract. So they should have just taxed people, and provided insurance if they're going to go that route.

But I agree it's very hard to get the picture on a law as complex as the ACA, so I don't fault people for thinking it will work / not work. The success of initiatives that massive is all in the details, and there is a lot of them.


Hence, why we rely on people who understand the details to help gain understanding of the law. Hence why it's okay to read summaries and analyses and gain insight into whether or not it will work. Hence why it's actually better to read an expert's opinion than to read the entire thing yourself and form an opinion.
 
2013-12-14 03:20:50 PM  
OK, you heard him.  We now  have to disregard all secondary sources when commenting or forming an opinion on the Tea Party idiots.

What are secondary sources you ask?

"All of them, Katie."
 
m00
2013-12-14 03:20:58 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Sure, but it's not stealing to require them to pay their employees a minimum wage. As I've said before, I think we should do both. Why can't we pay Americans enough to live on? What is so wrong about that?


Okay lets say you are a Mom & Pop deli. I'm Walmart. We're competitors.

If I really, really need something I set the lobbying machine in motion and influence foreign and public policy. The goods on my shelves use factories in China where the working conditions are tantamount to slave labor.  I can "get out of" regulations that are inconvenient to me, because I have an army of lawyers. I have a whole department of Union busters. I also probably enjoy a much lower tax rate.

Minimum wage raises by $5. You are struggling to survive already, and now you can't afford to have an extra cashier. The guy you get your meat from is in the same boat, and he has to raise his meats by 3 cents / pound. Maybe your profit margins are so thin already that this is the straw that breaks the camel back.

On the other hand because I'm Walmart, I biatch about the increase in the news (free advertisement), pass the cost onto consumers and "blame" government for destroying the economy. I talk about how awful this is for America, and use my lobbying leverage to get some favorable loophole created in public policy that offsets the cost to me. Maybe the loophole is the minimum wage doesn't apply to "emergency shifts," so I have all my employes work 20 hour weeks + 20 hours "emergency shifts." Maybe I get to claim the amount on my income tax. Maybe I bargain to pay less tariffs. Let the lobbyists figure it out.

You risk going out of business. I influence policy so it doesn't affect me, and then I get to take over your customers.

Please, don't throw me in the briar patch.
 
m00
2013-12-14 03:24:47 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Hence, why we rely on people who understand the details to help gain understanding of the law. Hence why it's okay to read summaries and analyses and gain insight into whether or not it will work. Hence why it's actually better to read an expert's opinion than to read the entire thing yourself and form an opinion.


Well, my objection here is that all the media that give you the opinions are basically owned by the wealthy corporations who are the problem.

http://www.nowfoundation.org/issues/communications/tv/mediacontrol.h tm l
 
2013-12-14 03:25:25 PM  

m00: Okay lets say you are a Mom & Pop deli. I'm Walmart. We're competitors.

If I really, really need something I set the lobbying machine in motion and influence foreign and public policy.


Not sure what that has to do with raising the minimum wage?

m00: Minimum wage raises by $5. You are struggling to survive already, and now you can't afford to have an extra cashier. The guy you get your meat from is in the same boat, and he has to raise his meats by 3 cents / pound. Maybe your profit margins are so thin already that this is the straw that breaks the camel back.


Wait, why would you need an extra cashier if you're already struggling to survive? That doesn't make sense. A struggling business isn't expanding.
 
2013-12-14 03:26:51 PM  

m00: Well, my objection here is that all the media that give you the opinions are basically owned by the wealthy corporations who are the problem.


Yeah, except no they're not. Also, the wealthy corporations are the ones who benefit MOST from a low minimum wage. See: Walmart and McDonald's benefiting from having their customer's go on food stamps and medicaid.
 
m00
2013-12-14 03:27:21 PM  

born_yesterday: OK, you heard him. We now have to disregard all secondary sources when commenting or forming an opinion on the Tea Party idiots.


No, I'm just saying don't get your opinion on the 49ers from the President of the Cowboy's Fan Club.
 
2013-12-14 03:27:36 PM  
Not customers, employees. We are subsidizing the wealthy corporations by having a low minimum wage is the point.
 
2013-12-14 03:28:34 PM  

m00: born_yesterday: OK, you heard him. We now have to disregard all secondary sources when commenting or forming an opinion on the Tea Party idiots.

No, I'm just saying don't get your opinion on the 49ers from the President of the Cowboy's Fan Club.


That also doesn't make sense. If you're reading Krugman, you're getting your opinion on the 49ers by a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist well-educated in the NFL.
 
2013-12-14 03:29:44 PM  
Apparently we have to disregard all secondary sources that are critical of the Ryan budget, because they are all in the pocket of wealthy corporations for some reason? This is seriously a weird argument, and it doesn't make any sense at all.
 
m00
2013-12-14 03:31:27 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Apparently we have to disregard all secondary sources that are critical of the Ryan budget, because they are all in the pocket of wealthy corporations for some reason? This is seriously a weird argument, and it doesn't make any sense at all.


Strawmen typically don't :D
 
2013-12-14 03:31:51 PM  

m00: No, if you want to reduce inequality you stop taxing cap gains at 15% (or 0% if you're really wealthy) and labor at 30%.


Absolutely. You'll be happy to know that cap gains did go up for higher incomes. So there was that sliver of progressivism from the President. Your analogy on minimum wage is just silly. Labor's share of GDP is at historical lows. We are making history with low wages right now. Raise the goddamn minimum wage.

m00: If you want to stop inequality you stop giving corporations like GE 2 billion dollars a year, while regulating the hell out of the local mom & pop deli.


Agreed on GE. I don't agree that mom & pops are 'regulated to hell'. Regulations aren't the problem. A lack of demand is the problem. Raising the minimum wage puts money into consumers hands, creating demand. Surprise.

m00: I accept this as an answer. But if you are a progressive, you should stop voting Democrat. (And conservatives should stop voting Republican).


As a Mass resident, I was able to vote for both in Elizabeth Warren.
 
2013-12-14 03:34:22 PM  

m00: cameroncrazy1984: Apparently we have to disregard all secondary sources that are critical of the Ryan budget, because they are all in the pocket of wealthy corporations for some reason? This is seriously a weird argument, and it doesn't make any sense at all.

Strawmen typically don't :D


You didn't just argue that you can't trust sources because they're all in the pocket of big corporations?
 
2013-12-14 03:36:12 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: As a Mass resident, I was able to vote for both in Elizabeth Warren.


Why would you do that? Obviously both sides are bad!
 
m00
2013-12-14 03:42:19 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Why would you do that? Obviously both sides are bad!


Enjoy your strawman. I like Warren. :) I wish she'd run in 2016 for pres.
 
2013-12-14 03:47:43 PM  

m00: cameroncrazy1984: Why would you do that? Obviously both sides are bad!

Enjoy your strawman. I like Warren. :) I wish she'd run in 2016 for pres.


Not a strawman. You said "If you are a progressive, don't vote Democrat." Are you now saying your generalization is invalid?
 
m00
2013-12-14 03:49:06 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: You didn't just argue that you can't trust sources because they're all in the pocket of big corporations?


I said we live in a world where all opinion merchants have an agenda (whatever that may be). But it is fact that most media outlets are owned by a small handful of larger corporations, and yes I think that colors the tone of their stories.

So if you are really interested in a subject, take the time to form your own opinion based on your own direct research. If it's a politician, watch the whole speech (rather than reading the excerpts).  If it's a law or a bill, go read it (or as much of it as practicable). Do research on a topic, and look at primary sources as much as possible -- especially ones that have no stake in the matter one way or another. As a voter, fill yourself with information and form your own opinion. That's all I'm saying.
 
m00
2013-12-14 03:51:42 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Not a strawman. You said "If you are a progressive, don't vote Democrat." Are you now saying your generalization is invalid?


It was a response to this:

Dusk-You-n-Me: Because Obama isn't a progressive. Neither are most congressional democrats. The progressive caucus isn't all that large, chief. Most Democrats are 'centrist', otherwise known as Republicans. Which is why we saw taxes go up on the wealthiest, but the bar raised from $250K to $400K. A progressive President wouldn't have gone for that. He also wouldn't be begging the GOP to help him pass chained-CPI. Obama ain't no liberal.


If you are a progressive, don't vote for Democrats who you don't consider progressive. Because part of having a conservation means not constantly qualifying things that are implied by the history.
 
2013-12-14 04:43:14 PM  

m00: So if you are really interested in a subject, take the time to form your own opinion based on your own direct research


Why would I waste time when I can ask someone whose specialty is that field?
 
m00
2013-12-14 04:48:16 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Why would I waste time when I can ask someone whose specialty is that field?


Because this is how ignorance and falsehoods propagate. If you live in the 1950s, why waste time researching the dangers of smoking when all those scientists and doctors working for the cigarette companies told you that smoking gave health benefits?

Trust the specialists

www.jordansemar.com
 
2013-12-14 05:15:04 PM  

m00: Because this is how ignorance and falsehoods propagate


So you never went to college to learn from a professor? Come on, that's such crap and you know it.

Ignorance and falsehoods propagate when you trust Megyn Kelly to provide your news.
 
m00
2013-12-14 05:32:20 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: So you never went to college to learn from a professor? Come on, that's such crap and you know it.

Ignorance and falsehoods propagate when you trust Megyn Kelly to provide your news.


Well, I think the difference is professors are employed by the university for the express purpose of conducting research, and also teaching students. There are politics at play certainly at the grad school level. But for the most part you can trust what you learn (at least in hard sciences, engineering, etc).

The problem is that the goal of news reporting isn't to give you unbiased fact condensed into a digestible format. It's to get viewers, page hits, etc... which are converted into money. In the cases where the outlet is owned by a larger entity, it might be to tow the line and affect the news. For example, when pundits tell you who is electable and who isn't. "Don't vote for X because you'll be throwing your vote away, scientific FACT."

I can't really think of any unbiased news source. The closest is probably Daily Show, which is sad because it's a COMEDY SHOW.
 
2013-12-14 06:00:54 PM  

m00: Well, I think the difference is professors are employed by the university for the express purpose of conducting research, and also teaching students.


And analysts are employed by news organizations to analyze legislation. I'm not talking about your opinion piece writers. I'm talking about the actual journalists

m00: n the cases where the outlet is owned by a larger entity, it might be to tow the line and affect the news. For example, when pundits tell you who is electable and who isn't. "Don't vote for X because you'll be throwing your vote away, scientific FACT."


You're talking about opinion journalism, not regular journalism. Time, Rolling Stone, Newsweek, the NY Times, they all employ non-opinion journalists who analyze legislation all the time. This is so you don't have to spend 22 hours a day reading source material. Not everyone can sit at home and read every piece of legislation. That's why we do rely on these educated and knowledgeable people to analyze and summarize for us. It's not providing opinion, it's providing analysis.
 
m00
2013-12-14 06:14:56 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: I'm talking about the actual journalists


Do you have any examples?
 
Displayed 50 of 205 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report