Quote:
Originally Posted by Type 97 Chi-ha
Actually Bush was hardly conservative. He actually was the one starting the big-time spending on social programs (not just the wars). Obama is doing the same thing on a much greater scale. And it's easy to talk about "helping those less fortunate", which is an implication that arguing against social programs is being heartless. Social programs, in some cases, have cost too much or have done more harm than good. Obama's "Cash for Clunkers" program was obviously welfare for the more fortunate, not the people who genuinely needed help, and it certainly failed to do any economic good.
|
Jeez, way to miss the point of Katie's post. Well done. Simmer down for a second and read it again without getting into one of the Katie-defined frenzies.
As for "helping the less fortunate:" You can't really call denying medical help to people who need but can't afford it "helping." That doesn't work out on a very basic level, regardless of political conviction or belief-system.
Quote:
|
Having read articles about the history of the American newspaper business, the newspapers in the early days were openly partisan and made no pretense otherwise. Fox may be lying when they call themselves "fair and balanced", but Dan Rather, the example I used previously, was no better-and in fact dishonest, which correctly ruined his career.
|
All news media have to adorn themselves with adjectives like "Fair" and "Balanced" and "Objective." Otherwise they wouldn't be approved as official, real news. Then they'd be one of these boulevard-programmes.
As for dishonest people in the media... go into any newsroom, pay the editor a coffee and tell him to stand in the middle of the office and yell "You bastard, I saw what you did there! That's nothing more than a lie!" and you'll see how many people start trembling. Having worked for two newspapers, I can say that this is not one of the funnier gags your editor pulls.