Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
what part of it was non-factual, out of context, or otherwise misleading?
It's just that he picks stories to backup his view point. Anything the government, at any level, does right he ignores. Not surprisingly, he is an avowed Libertarian.
The irony is that among the biggest per-capita recepients of government handouts are rural residents and baby-boomers. These groups also lean towards small-government conservatism. Many of these people probably watch Stossel and agree with him wholeheartedly.
But the idea of big city liberals spending everyone else's money is largely a fiction. While this definitely occurs at a municipal and state level, it's practically non-existent at the federal level. At the federal level, you mainly have affluent, blue states subsidizing poorer mid-Western and Southern states.
Take a look at a map of government entitlement spending:The Geography of Government Benefits - Interactive Map - NYTimes.com. The worst offenders are overwhelmingly in the South. Of course, this map doesn't include non-entitlement spending. If you included all the rural subsidies and boondoggle federal programs, it would be even worse.
The idea of wasteful government is no longer a liberal vs. conservative thing. It has less to do with politics and more with the fact that people, regardless of politics, like free stuff. And if you give them free stuff, they will rationalize a reason for why they deserve it.
What is cheaper over all; giving out free bike helmets or paying for the hospitalization with private health insurance? Don't even consider the crippled and dead. They are irrelevant to your thinking. Sounds like the propaganda starts with the opening credits and ends with the fade out. I won't bother wasting my time on Faux BS. Thanks for the warning.
It's just that he picks stories to backup his view point. Anything the government, at any level, does right he ignores. Not surprisingly, he is an avowed Libertarian.
He's an opinion guy, a commentator. Why is it up to him to him to report on things that the government does well? There are plenty of people out there doing that--NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, the NYT and WAPO to name some. He has limited time & resources, so naturally he is going to report on stories that illustrate the points he wants to make.
Apparently you can't find fault with his facts or logic, so you go after his topic selection. It's like saying to Michael Jordan, 'sure you can dunk the basketball, but you ducked out on playing football, didn't you?'
Do you have the slightest evidence to back up your assertion, or are we just expected to bow down and believe?
No need to bow to me, my friend. I believe the purpose of forums is to share opinions.
Anyway, many years ago, back when Stossel was on ABC, he admitted that he stuttered and it was the editing that gave the fluent impression one gets from the segments he taped. Google "Stossel" and "stutter."
Also IMHO, a journalist reports news. Stossel doesn't do that and it's very frustrating for me to watch his segments. He presents "persuasive essays" in video form. That's not a journalism....and certainly not an individual I would trust to provide me with unbiased facts (even if I might agree with his point of view at times). Watch his segments, and I think you'll pretty much agree.
LAST, do me a favor and please get off your "evidence" high-horse. Having my OWN opinions is what makes me tune FOX (not really) NEWS out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.