Chances are, you're not building any. So you think it's OK for Tennessee, Mississippi or South Carolina to either self-pollute or more often than not, push pollution off on adjoining states ala Arkansas---->Oklahoma in the drive to be more "business friendly".
Probably, but in the end, someone a few years down the road is going to take part or all of the technology they developed and part or all of something some other couple of people couldn't make work and make stacks off money off of it and change the way we generate power. That's the way shit like this works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_(TV_series) Such an awesome series.
Funny LA Times is cited as an example of liberalism. In its early years, the LA Times was essentially the paper of the California Republican Party. It's gotten more moderate now, but still.
Looks like President Obama wasn't the only one duped by Solyndra. http://www.baycitizen.org/solyndra/story/schwarzennegers-solyndra-subsidy/
1) Of course these organizations goals is to report the media. That does not mean they do not have a bias. You may disagree with me on the direction of media bias, but if you think that a new organization whose primary goal is to report the news cannot, under any circumstance, have a bias- then you are an "indictment of our education system", and are "truly embarrassing." 2) CNN teaming up for a debate means nothing. Debates are good for ratings and the Republicans are the only ones having a debate now because they are the only party having a primary. CNN's "best political team on television" has 7 or 8 liberals for 2 to 3 Conservatives. Their hosts, like Blitzer, Cooper, and King are all pretty fair, but they have a subtle (and possibly unintentional) left wing bias. Overall I do like CNN and think it is pretty fair. 3) Every time somebody professes an opinion you disagree with, you come back with some comment about your adversaries IQ. Its presumptuous, its annoying, and it implies the body of your post has not fully made your point. 4) We are not going to agree on media bias so there is no point to further discuss it. I think the fact that most here on ultra-left Big Soccer are claiming the media in general is "Moderate", and that myself and the majority of Americans believe it is "left leaning" speaks for itself. You will disagree, again, there is no point to discuss it.
Whatever it used to be, it is not anywhere close to Conservative now. I read it 2-3 times a week, and I stand by my assertion that if you think it is Conservative you are: a) Insane or b) Do not read the LA Times. http://www.themediareport.com/topic-lat-liberal-bias/lat-liberal-bias-index.htm
Or (c), I'm not an internet commenter with a flimsy grasp for facts or perspective I get the sense that you take slights (real and perceived) really easily and perceive bias where none exists. And I don't know who you're trying to convince by sending me a link to a site whose primary goal is digging up (mostly) perceived liberal bias in the media. I mean, if your game is posting arbitrary links without commentary or context, I can easily send you to a similar site, except written by people who are good at media analysis: http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/los_angeles_times
Hmmm....this doesn't comment on his IQ but either questions his mental health or calls him a liar. So from this I'll infer that the body of your post has not fully made your point? Great.
The implication being since he is not insane, he does not read the LA Times. Anyways, as I mentioned earlier, there is nothing to be gained from arguing media bias at the moment.
So the implication of the implication is that if I disagree with you, I'm obviously talking about something I don't know. Thanks! That's a lot less insulting! Because that's the sort of thing you usually do. Sure there is. For one, we can actually test the right wing's repeated complaints about media bias and see that they are full of shit.
Why are they full of shit? Because you say so? On the other hand, you have surveys of media members actual political leaning (overwhelmingly left), you have numerous studies like this, or this, or this. And lastly, a majority of Americans believe the media is to the left. Sure, none of this constitutes "proof", but it is a lot more evidence than anything I have seen from the other side. I think anybody with perspective and can compare apples to apples will come to this conclusion. A recent example: Rick Perry makes inciting comments regarding Bernake. CNN, ABC, NYT, LATimes, etc all covered it for multiple news cycles. Joe Biden calling the Tea Party terrorists, Maxime Waters tells the Tea Party to "go to hell", Benson says "Republicans in Congress want blacks to go back to second class citizens", barely a mention of those remarks by any major news organization outside of Fox News.
how about everybody STFU about liberal bias in the media. how does it relate to Solyndra being a failure? reason #1 I stopped coming here regularly.
Because we have a media landscape that bends over backwards to include a conservative voice on any issue for the sake of "balance", and because conservative commentators have a disproportionately bigger and wider platform relative to the number of Americans who support their views. So in a campaign where the Democratic candidate was very popular and had things go way for the most part received positive coverage. SHOCKING! And while Clinton's first 100 days were perceived to be rocky, and yeah, they kinda were, they were never as bad as the opposition made them appear to be. First off, the way the American political spectrum is calibrated is really off kilter. "Liberal" is almost a dirty word, even when the middle supports supposedly "liberal" issues like maintaining Medicare and SS, and support for same sex marriage topped 50% this year. Also, You didn't major in journalism in college, I assume. So people who don't reach the conclusion don't have perspective. Way to be a dick, dick. That, and you apparently don't know what "apples to apples" means. Perry is a hot commodity. He's the hot new shit coming out of GOP - of course he'll dominate the news cycle. Plus, Biden never actually called the Tea Party terrorists on record. And for every Maxine Waters, I can give you, oh, I don't know, every TPer who's ever had a platform. So yes, if you lacked perspective and had conveniently selective memory, I can totally understand how you could reach the conclusion that the media is undeniably biased. Me? I'd hesitate to slap a label on a institution with so many disparate players and, while I acknowledge that the profession may attract more liberal thinkers by its very nature, I recognize that the people who pay the bills and pull the strings have reasons to be pro-corporate, so I'll just say that the issue is inconclusive at best and the question is probably unanswerable.
I don't think this has been a 'trolled' conversation...I believe that a separate Solyndra thread wasn't really necessary, but the topic of liberal bias in the media here has been addressed by both sides with both argument and evidence (insubstantial as the conservative side is). I also think those who want to talk about the 'scandal' itself have been able to simultaneously.
it has been. we're talking about the lack of true government oversight in a $500 million expenditure. you're talking about media bias, for which there is a separate thread.
It was democratic failure and did not get reported in the media as a scandal because of media bias, since the media favors dems/liberals. It was actually a reasonable tangent.
"This may be the first scandal, but there's more coming. Of course, here on Big Soccer, Bush is still president and the Republicans are the only ones screwing up." Brummie, you got all of your nonsense from the above post? Wow.