Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
Ah, yes. The clearly objective IBD has all the answers (at least the ones that fit their narrative).
|
Sorry, I don't post the items from the IBD editorial pages that I don't agree with. There is no doubt that IBD is a business paper with a business and conservative bias (wow, imagine actually understanding that and being willing to say it), but they present liberal view points every day on their editorial page.
Quote:
|
They don't seem to mention Harlem Children's Zone. Soros does make a covenient bogeyman to rally the troops around the persecuted entity that is Fox News.
|
Here is the long and short on billionaires, all of them. If concern for the human condition was their number one priority or even a higher priority than making money, they would not be billionaires. You can put Soros on a pedestal if you want, I'll just keep alert to what he is doing and how he may be trying to exploit the system. It is a dog eat dog world.
---------- Post added at 09:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:08 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully Mars
You could easily make the same arguments in reserves by simply replacing the name Soros with Koch or Mellon.
|
I do. I trust my mother and my wife. And my trust of my wife is like a blind faith thing based on a foolish thing called love (sorry that may be the lyrics of a song, but true).
---------- Post added at 09:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
ace, dear, the rationale for firing williams was pretty clearly articulated in the letter i posted above you.
appearing on o-reilly and hannity amounted to a violation of npr's code of conduct for reporters. he had been warned about it repeatedly. it just turned out that this time he said something of such a high and focused level of boneheadedness that they felt compelled to act.
you've got no defense of the content of what williams said. in the letter, npr says it was enough that it was controversial. because it was stupid and bigoted. you may live in a "different culture" in which being a bigot isn't controversial. i suppose there's always been such pockets out there. i mean, any racist is normal in **some** context.
that there are such contexts that normalize different forms of bigotry doesn't mean that being a bigot is ok. but it appears that's what you're arguing.
before you were defending williams "right" to say stupid things.
now you try to defend william's stupid things implying that he's a bigot.
and the soros piece from idb is really funny. a series of articles in the legit press appear tracking down the funding networks behind the tea party that show it's largely the same old same old and not some "renegade" astroturf movement and the following monday idb edito is rehearsing stuff we all already know as if it justifies what the right is doing. same as it ever was.
|
Perhaps it boils down to a question of consistency.
If NPR holds everyone to the same objective standard, good. I just want honesty. Say you fired him because he appears on Fox News if that is the case, don't fabricate a reason and expect thinking people to buy it without question.
If liberals are fit to be tied by big money going into conservative causes because they fear it buys influence and will "destroy democracy" or whatever (which has never been proven) then be consistent about it when looking at money flow going to liberal causes.
If you claim IBD has a bias, be willing to acknowledge a NY Times bias.
If you call a conservative a racist for what may be irrational fears, say the same about a liberal with what may be irrational fears.
If you want to make fun of O'Donnel, make fun of Alvin Greene running for Senate in SC.
The list can go on and on, but I am sure you get the point (but won't acknowledge it, my oh my the thought of trying to be objective).