3 ms·
I asked for a second source regarding the financial reform bill. I'm well aware of the approximate projected size of our federal deficit, thanks. The fact tha
by jbooth 17y ago
I asked for a second source regarding the financial reform bill. I'm well aware of the approximate projected size of our federal deficit, thanks.
The fact that Heritage supported Reagan, opposed Clinton, supported Bush and now claim to be concerned about deficits says a lot about the Heritage Foundation.
EDIT: Awesome, downvoted for clarifying a willful misinterpretation of my original comment. Ladies and gentlemen, your conservative movement -- it's not about facts, it's about which side you're on.
- yummyfajitas 17y agoYou were given several other sources for that as well, all of which were posted here. You also criticized another source simply for being conservative, which is what I was responding to. Regardless, please clarify your point. Do you believe the WSJ is lying about the contents of the bill? If not, then what is the relevance of pointing out their opinion on other political matters?
- jbooth 17y agoI believe they're extremely prone to exaggerate any bad parts, and there was room for a lot of weaseling in their descriptions. Especially considering that the bill isn't finished yet. I'm still waiting to see the death panels. Since they'd never lie, of course. I didn't criticize Heritage for being conservative. I criticized Heritage for being Republican, regardless of principle or policy. EDIT: To clarify, it's entirely possible that the provisions in the bill still being written are just as bad as the WSJ says. It's also possible that they're significantly less bad. Regardless of which they are, the WSJ would have written this exact article. Does that make my complaint regarding their worth more clear?