That’s to my original point. I think it also leans liberal and always has, but that does not make for bad journalism. This is why I asked you for a counter balance, but you seem to have none you trust. I usually use Forbes as it is a well written traditionally conservative and business focused publication.
Now what is “liberal” I believe is strongly affected by a hard move right in parts of this country. During his presidency Clinton was fairly middle of the road, keep in mind that he played a part in constraining welfare benefits. You may not agree, but l doubt I’m the only one.
bad journalism is claiming you are not biased when you clearly are. NPR is floating with stories against immigration control and against balanced trade. Not a single story on how our companies are abused in foreign markets.
I can point out plenty of individual articles though (from many sources) that are proper journalism, articles that adhere to ethics and present a balanced story. I just can’t point out a top provider that does this consistently.
You are likely more conservative than me and that’s fine. I appreciate that you are trying to find a news source you can sink your teeth into. I’m likely more of an internationalist than you too, which sometimes is considered “liberal” for some reason now. This country is no longer taking about the same reality and that is our issue.
Don’t know, I may be more conservative. I like to think I’m a practicalist.
I don’t support socialism because it doesn’t work, it goes against basic human nature.
I’m for helping the poor, that’s why I’m against rampant immigration which undermines entry level workers. I want our minorities to be ‘in demand’. Imagine the impact of a generation of young black men who were gainfully employed since teens.
I’m for enabling very basic healthcare for citizens, but that’s not what ACA did.
Actually, I’m probably more of an internationalist then you, spent over a decade living and working abroad. I think people with a global understanding should get the concept of Subsidiarity.
“Socialism” has a different meaning to people and it’s probably not worth splitting hairs on that one. But I can say that I believe a society with a fairly fat middle class is probably the most desirable one. For that case I’m more in favor a bit steeper tax on higher incomes, the growth of wealth disparity in this country over the last few decades is sickening to me.
For employment, there’s a few things. First those who employ illegal immigrants are the ones generating the demand, it’s hard to stay or want to come when you can’t make a living. Many uneducated immigrants work hard at jobs many Americans don’t want to do. The impact on work would is not just minorities, but whites also. The problem is that the nice show up on Monday and get a good job, sometimes without a HS diploma, days are gone. It’s not really foreign competition or immigrants that have eliminated the good factory positions, it’s actually automation.
The problem with “Obama care” is that is tried to be too many things, but market based, subsidized, and required. This is a discussion for another day, but basically if you have insurance you are paying for the health care of the poor. The services the healthcare system writes off. have to be paid by someone.
Our middle class hollowed out as we entered fairly one sided trade deals. To curtail illegal immigration we need to crack down on both employers and on the illegals as well. Many of them are committing identity fraud and the employer is not at fault.
It’s also completely irrelevant that many illegals are hard workers, stop taking the side of big business over the people they replace that really need the jobs. Maybe an employer will have to spend more time training and managing citizen workers, but it will pay off for all (except the illegal).
My idea of basic healthcare is more akin to free clinics at the county level, where they can provide basic services. It’s a complex separate discussion on how we reduce the general costs of healthcare. If I was to mandate anything, it would be catastrophic coverage.
paying your cable bill which includes EWTN is not the same as paying your taxes & having the government give that money away to a corporation that can survive just fine on its own. I have a choice whether I want to pay for cable, I don’t with PBS.
[quote=“billb, post:54, topic:497463”]I have a choice whether I want to pay for cable, I don’t with PBS.
If national expenditures were a cafeteria experience, then there are plenty of things that you and I would rather not pay for. We might differ on those things, but the truth of this remains. The fact is PBS/NPR is a small expenditure in a multi-trillion dollar budget which also manages to self-support much of its activities.
I’m conservative and where I live in Minnesota without twin cities public television I wouldn’t get any news from my state’s capital. I also Jokingly refer it to cspan with a you betcha or or uff da thrown in.