4 ms·

>I'm still failing to see where this is "news" FedEx made specific arguments in favor of the cut to shore up support. Those talking points turned out (surprise

by mthoms 7y ago

>I'm still failing to see where this is "news" FedEx made specific arguments in favor of the cut to shore up support. Those talking points turned out (surprise!) to be untrue. Taxpayers of the United States have subsequently lost out to the tune of several hundreds of millions of dollars. What part of that is not news-worthy?

Consultant32452 7y ago
I feel you're too caught up in whether or not you personally feel FedEx should pay more in taxes. That's not what is at issue here. If NYT believes FedEx should pay more in taxes, if the NYT wants the law changed for any reason, I think that's fantastic. I welcome them to register as a PAC, subject themselves to the relevant regulations, give up their press passes, and fight for better tax law.
- mthoms 7y ago
  We disagree with whats at issue. To me (and the NYT) it's not okay for CEOs to lie and deceive in order to get legislation passed. Especially legislation that enriches their shareholders while hurting the average American taxpayer. The exact amount they pay is not the issue, and we're in agreement that no laws were broken. The issue is one of morality not legality. They deserve to be called on their BS and they were.
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    Your favorite political activist/watchdog group is perfectly suited for that. But since you have no moral claim to FedEx's money, there's no news here. Maybe they changed their mind. Maybe they lied. Doesn't matter because you have no moral claim to that money.
    - mthoms 7y ago
      >Maybe they lied. Doesn't matter because you have no moral claim to that money We have a difference in morals. You claim to have no problem with FedEx lying in order to enrich itself at the expense of hardworking regular people. I do have a problem with it. The New York Times has a problem with it. And judging by this comment section, a lot of hard working Americans have a problem with it. There's really nothing you can say to morally justify it, which is why you keep deflecting with the "fake news", and "biased reporting" angle. That's all you've brought to the discussion. Yet curiously, you've not been able to cite a single element of the article that is false or misleading.
      - Consultant32452 7y ago
        You're trying to put me into a box where I don't belong. You are mind reading FedEx and mind reading me. You have no idea if they actually lied or simply changed their mind, or simply believe that what they did really is what leads to the best overall outcome for the public. I'm not calling this fake news. I'm not suggesting it has any factual inaccuracies. I've offered what I feel is a reasonable delineation between straight news journalism and political propaganda. You just keep asserting you and others want to know this information without actually addressing what I'm saying. If you disagree with me on where the line is between straight news journalism and political activism, that's fine. Can you please provide a general rule or set of rules that we can apply to all articles so that we can tell the difference between journalism and political activism?
        mthoms 7y ago
        >I'm not calling this fake news. Let's go up a few comments where you said: >I'm still failing to see where this is "news" as opposed to "agenda." It's right there. >Can you please provide a general rule or set of rules that we can apply to all articles so that we can tell the difference between journalism and political activism You made a claim that the article is "propaganda", "activism" and "agenda" (your words). So the onus would be on you to prove your claim. Or at least offer a coherent argument why you believe that. As far as I can tell, the only thing that makes this propaganda in your eyes is (a) it's from the NYT and (b) it opposes your worldview somehow. Anyhow, I'm going to stop here with this particular thread.
        Consultant32452 7y ago
        You already revealed yourself when you stated you felt like you had a moral claim to something you have no legal claim to. That's fine, and a perfectly reasonable opinion to have. But by doing so, you have admitted that this is a matter of political ideology. You further accused me of merely having an opposing political bias to what is being conveyed in the article, doubling down on your own assertion that it is in fact about political propaganda. If it were just straight facts, then neither of our political biases would matter. Because if it were straight journalism it wouldn't be framed in such a way that your political leanings mattered.

by mthoms 7y ago

Consultant32452 7y ago

I feel you're too caught up in whether or not you personally feel FedEx should pay more in taxes. That's not what is at issue here. If NYT believes FedEx should pay more in taxes, if the NYT wants the law changed for any reason, I think that's fantastic. I welcome them to register as a PAC, subject themselves to the relevant regulations, give up their press passes, and fight for better tax law.

mthoms 7y ago
We disagree with whats at issue. To me (and the NYT) it's not okay for CEOs to lie and deceive in order to get legislation passed. Especially legislation that enriches their shareholders while hurting the average American taxpayer. The exact amount they pay is not the issue, and we're in agreement that no laws were broken. The issue is one of morality not legality. They deserve to be called on their BS and they were.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  Your favorite political activist/watchdog group is perfectly suited for that. But since you have no moral claim to FedEx's money, there's no news here. Maybe they changed their mind. Maybe they lied. Doesn't matter because you have no moral claim to that money.
  - mthoms 7y ago
    >Maybe they lied. Doesn't matter because you have no moral claim to that money We have a difference in morals. You claim to have no problem with FedEx lying in order to enrich itself at the expense of hardworking regular people. I do have a problem with it. The New York Times has a problem with it. And judging by this comment section, a lot of hard working Americans have a problem with it. There's really nothing you can say to morally justify it, which is why you keep deflecting with the "fake news", and "biased reporting" angle. That's all you've brought to the discussion. Yet curiously, you've not been able to cite a single element of the article that is false or misleading.
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      You're trying to put me into a box where I don't belong. You are mind reading FedEx and mind reading me. You have no idea if they actually lied or simply changed their mind, or simply believe that what they did really is what leads to the best overall outcome for the public. I'm not calling this fake news. I'm not suggesting it has any factual inaccuracies. I've offered what I feel is a reasonable delineation between straight news journalism and political propaganda. You just keep asserting you and others want to know this information without actually addressing what I'm saying. If you disagree with me on where the line is between straight news journalism and political activism, that's fine. Can you please provide a general rule or set of rules that we can apply to all articles so that we can tell the difference between journalism and political activism?
      - mthoms 7y ago
        >I'm not calling this fake news. Let's go up a few comments where you said: >I'm still failing to see where this is "news" as opposed to "agenda." It's right there. >Can you please provide a general rule or set of rules that we can apply to all articles so that we can tell the difference between journalism and political activism You made a claim that the article is "propaganda", "activism" and "agenda" (your words). So the onus would be on you to prove your claim. Or at least offer a coherent argument why you believe that. As far as I can tell, the only thing that makes this propaganda in your eyes is (a) it's from the NYT and (b) it opposes your worldview somehow. Anyhow, I'm going to stop here with this particular thread.
        Consultant32452 7y ago
        You already revealed yourself when you stated you felt like you had a moral claim to something you have no legal claim to. That's fine, and a perfectly reasonable opinion to have. But by doing so, you have admitted that this is a matter of political ideology. You further accused me of merely having an opposing political bias to what is being conveyed in the article, doubling down on your own assertion that it is in fact about political propaganda. If it were just straight facts, then neither of our political biases would matter. Because if it were straight journalism it wouldn't be framed in such a way that your political leanings mattered.