4 ms·
Wow, the absolute and obvious bias in that article, not to mention the comments. Is there a more neutral source, or at least a source that isn’t so blatantly on
by Mayzie 6y ago
Wow, the absolute and obvious bias in that article, not to mention the comments. Is there a more neutral source, or at least a source that isn’t so blatantly one-sided?
- djcapelis 6y agoWhat did you expect? The Hoover institution is a fundamentalist think tank and their analysis is written entirely to pitch lower taxes and less regulation as always being the right thing. In short, they are living up to the level of brilliance of the economic policies of their founder.
- pmoriarty 6y ago"blatantly one-sided" Not really surprising. This article is from the Hoover Institution[1], which has: - Condoleezza Rice as its director - John Yoo (torture apologist for the Bush Jr administration) as a Visiting Fellow - Henry Kissinger and Donald Rumsfeld as Distinguished Visiting Fellows and which bought its Policy Review publication from The Heritage Foundation[2]. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover.org https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover.org [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation
- throw_m239339 6y agoI mean a lot of these people also sit on different boards of many hip western US tech startups. I don't think most of these people are actively involved in partisan politics anymore.
- pmoriarty 6y agoBut when they do opine on political, social, and economical issues you can be sure they're not going to be siding with The Nation.
- refurb 6y agoI assume you also call out the "absolute and obvious bias" when you agree with the conclusions of an article?