Thoughts on Paul Ryan?
Find a Conversation
Thoughts on Paul Ryan?
| Mon, 08-13-2012 - 9:54am |
I'm kind of new to iVillage, so I hope I'm posting in the right place!
I was just wondering what you think about Romney's VP choice. I don't know a lot about Paul Ryan, so I don't have much of an opinion yet.
Pages
I see Ryan as out of touch with working people's household economics. His base is money with money which most people will not have any experience with. However, I am equally annoyed at both parties for not getting to the issues. I do not expect a president to provide jobs. Employers provide jobs. In the US a consumer driven economy: needs the consumption to a point where more jobs are needed by the employers to get the products and services to customers. Ryan does not seem to understand that relationship.
Eh? I NEVER ever said that those individuals worked for Fox. However, Fox made sure to give coverage to those individuals (using words like"catch" and/or quoting other .....wait for it.....conservative organizations bemoaning the "early sign of the negative coverage the Wisconsin congressman can expect going forward.") ******sotto voce****aawwww, poor baby.
In the case of Candy Crowley, they speculated at length. http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/the-five/transcript/are-media-being-fair-paul-ryan Bleah but par for the Fox course.
As for "bias being evident" why not point a finger at conservative outlets which by nature are every bit just as biased? The Weekly Standard. Fox. The Wall Street Journal. The National Review. The Washington Times. Etc. They're far from being either "fair" or "balanced". Yeah, the omission of comment about conservative bias is significant. Apparently they get a pass though because they're not "mainstream"? Which, BTW, leads me to wonder how "mainstream" is defined. If it's liberal, it's mainstream? Just curious.......
Edited to ask again about the Bob Schieffer accusation. Well?
"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."
"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."
Are you suggesting that politicians cannot be "professionals" in other disciplines?
For the "60 minutes" omission, one should read the transcript of what was aired on the show and then listen to the unedited version of the interview posted at CBS's internet site. Those paying attention, will note the omission.
For years I have picked up on the bias in the media, but was a bit unsure if it really existed or if it was my perception. It is reassuring to read articles from sources like the Pew Research Center, that not only validates its existence, but demonstrate the gravity of it.
"Are you suggesting that politicians cannot be "professionals" in other disciplines?"
No...I'm suggesting that Mr. Ryan can't add.
Really? You think he "can't add"? Now, that's a deep, highly intellectual observation. I bet you're right.
Still no links and no specifics about what was supposedly omitted from Schieffer's interview. If it was so significant, one ought to be ready, willing and able to share the information. Just a reminder. Those who make a claim bear the burden of providing proof.
Fox covered the "omission" and "bias". Mighty audacious and hypocritical of them!
Nor was there an even-handed decrying of obvious bias in conservative outlets. Omission can be as clear a sign of bias as commission (which would be the basis of the bias claim against Schieffer, right?)
But wait, wait, the light bulb just clicked on.
Pages