A fairness quiz for Obama

[sammy the sage]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...068367936.html

just a sample...

""Is it fair that roughly 88% of political contributions from supposedly impartial network television reporters, producers and other employees in 2008 went to Democrats?

Is it fair that the three counties with America's highest median family income just happen to be located in the Washington, D.C., metro area?

Is it fair that wind, solar and ethanol producers get billions of dollars of subsidies each year and pay virtually no taxes, while the oil and gas industry—which provides at least 10 times as much energy—pays tens of billions of dollars of taxes while the president complains that it is "subsidized"?""

[ArlJim78]

all good questions that will never be asked by people like Matt Lauer or Diane Saywer or George Snuffleupagus no matter how many times they land interviews with the president.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

all good questions that will never be asked by people like Matt Lauer or Diane Saywer or George Snuffleupagus no matter how many times they land interviews with the president.

Why would they ask?
It's not like they are reporters or journalists or anything like that.
Why, those knuckleheads actually think we added jobs last month!

[lamboguy]

as far as i'm concerned BARRACK OBAMA is nothing but a fraud starting from his nomination when he supposedly beat hillary. his promises have turned into being fraudulent, and re-election campaign is a fraud.

[cj's dad]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

as far as i'm concerned BARRACK OBAMA is nothing but a fraud starting from his nomination when he supposedly beat hillary. his promises have turned into being fraudulent, and re-election campaign is a fraud.

Are you really surprised ? He came into this with virtually no experience, a poor work ethic, a shady (at best) background, and little national exposure.
And he's from Chicago no less, the land of bilk and money.

We have reaped what we have sown.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by cj's dad

Are you really surprised ? He came into this with virtually no experience, a poor work ethic, a shady (at best) background, and little national exposure.
And he's from Chicago no less, the land of bilk and money.

We have reaped what we have sown.

But despite of all these shortfalls, real or perceived, there is one thing against which Obama will be forever insulated: Character assassination. He'd have to get one first.

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

Originally Posted by sammy the sage

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...068367936.html

just a sample...

""Is it fair that roughly 88% of political contributions from supposedly impartial network television reporters, producers and other employees in 2008 went to Democrats?

There is undoubtedly a multitude of good reasons for this statistic. That it is baffling to anybody is what surprises me.

Is it fair that the three counties with America's highest median family income just happen to be located in the Washington, D.C., metro area?

No. It should be the three most northeast counties of Wyoming. Everybody knows that.

Is it fair that wind, solar and ethanol producers get billions of dollars of subsidies each year and pay virtually no taxes, while the oil and gas industry—which provides at least 10 times as much energy—pays tens of billions of dollars of taxes while the president complains that it is "subsidized"?""

Wind and solar subsidies are fine by me at this point in time.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Can't you reply without using that mostpost style of answering within a quote so that your answers can't be quoted?

Originally Posted by StinkBug

There is undoubtedly a multitude of good reasons for this statistic

What kind of goofball way of answering is this? "Undoubtedly", "multitude"? - and then despite your overflowing confidence you leave it at that? Name a handful of the multitude of good reasons off since it is undoubtable.

[HUSKER55]

GUYS AND GALS, I still maintain that if government got out of business and business got out of government the capitalistic market system would take care of itself.

The reason that it is failing is because government is getting rid of the idea that people should have to work to better themselves.

Remember the old addage, "it is far easier to tear down a city than to build one". You can only build a city if people want to work. Our government is not helping.

BO is only concerned with the 1% instead of the other 99%.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by NJ Stinks

Wind and solar subsidies are fine by me at this point in time.

These are not the answer and probably never will be. It takes more energy to produce this technology than the technology itself saves. Only a bona fide losing horse player would support or applaud a system of play that still produces small, slow but sure negative ROIs. This is what you're doing here.

Boxcar

[Tom]

It is pretty obvious that Obama supporters do so to maintain their free ride.
As long as he is going to fill gas tanks and pay rent from his "stash" his allegedly higher-intellect left-leaning supporters will choose hand outs over achievement every time.

Anchors tend to stay on the bottom.

[ArlJim78]

government subsidies of any kind are a bad idea. they are not cut out to be venture capitalists and will always end up giving the money to people for the wrong reasons. just look at the terrible waste of money by Obama on solar. the money went to campaign donors who didn't have a viable product and went belly up within two years after protecting themselves from any harm. this will never be the answer. if you aren't willing to invest your own money in these companies then why would you want the government to do it with your tax money? it's complete nonsense.

oil and gas will power us long into the future.

[whiptastic]

Is it fair that roughly 88% of political contributions from supposedly impartial network television reporters, producers and other employees in 2008 went to Democrats?

The snarky answer: Yes, it's fair. The Republicans get 12% of the impartial, and 100% of the ones who are obviously not.

The skeptical answer: I wonder how they came up with that 88% number? It sounds pretty fishy, kind of like some one made that up on the spot. Who owns the WSJ anyway?

The lefty answer: Sure it's fair, the truth has a liberal bias.

The righty answer: It's not fair and I'm mad as hell. People in the entertainment industry should not contribute money to politics.

The pragmatic answer: It's their money, what do I care? Personally, I would have thrown it away on hookers. But, I guess in a way they did.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by sammy the sage

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...068367936.html

just a sample...

""Is it fair that roughly 88% of political contributions from supposedly impartial network television reporters, producers and other employees in 2008 went to Democrats?
Yeah it's fair because that is where they want their money to go. Employees do not set a news organizations policies. can you point out where a reporter gave out false information that favored a particular party.

Is it fair that the three counties with America's highest median family income just happen to be located in the Washington, D.C., metro area?
It's interesting that only one of the nation's richest communities is located in one of those counties.
This stands to reason. Very few government employees live in Washington, DC. Most earn good salaries, which they take to their homes in the outlying suburbs. The poor stay in DC. In addition to government workers, Congressmen, cabinet officials and agency heads, you also have lobbyists which are very well paid and likely do not live on K street. Add to that diplomats and Pentagon officers and it is clear why this should be the case.

Is it fair that wind, solar and ethanol producers get billions of dollars of subsidies each year and pay virtually no taxes, while the oil and gas industry—which provides at least 10 times as much energy—pays tens of billions of dollars of taxes while the president complains that it is "subsidized"?""

This is a good example of something a lot of you righties do. The author in speaking of the oil and gas industry says, "while the President complains it is subsidized". Leaving the impression that the President is unjustly accusing those industries of being subsidized when they are not. Then, if called on it, he will say "I never said they weren't." Oil and gas were subsidized when they were fledgling industries and they are still being subsidized.

Hey, JHS i answered between the lines.
Deal with it.

[bks]

""Is it fair that roughly 88% of political contributions from supposedly impartial network television reporters, producers and other employees in 2008 went to Democrats?"

I'll assume it's true. The relevant question is: how much does this matter w/r/t the news that we get?

Answer: very little. The idea that "reporters, producers and other EMPLOYEES" (my emphasis) determine what news their companies produce is, in a word, silly. It's "Fair", because it's insignificant.

News is a product, like cars are a product. I imagine something like 88% of GM workers contributed democrat too, but yet no one thinks [rightly] that GM employees determine what kind of cars GM builds. News employees have a bit more latitude to shape their product than do GM employees, but not by very much. Owners control their companies, something even right-wingers should have no problem understanding.

If you're interested in the impact of political donations on the news, the obvious place to look is where news OWNERS donate their money.