media matters

[Typical Lax Dad]

Here's that rotten ol' WaPo, giving Kamala a pass today, Old Salt.

Want help with your excuses as to how this "doesn't count" as criticism of Kamala?

The times demand serious economic ideas. Harris supplies gimmicks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... -gimmicks/

That's an editorial.

Right. That means that it's not criticism.

Why Isn't Kamala Harris Giving Interviews

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/08/busi ... views.html

I can do this all day. You're simply wrong. Always have been with your claims. Stories everywhere about Kamala dodging interviews.

Now what? They're doing as you ask.

That means it's tucked on 1/2 of a back page. It's not in the News section & it's just one piece in the Opinion section.
It's their obligatory complaint, as supposedly unbiased journalists. It does not impact their overall favorable & supportive coverage & slant on Harris & the Dems.

Right. No matter what, you're all set with your claims. Neat. If outlets don't do exactly what you want, well obviously they're biased and corrupt. Btw.....folks read the Times online by and large. There is no such thing as "a back page".

You know: I can play this same game with your claims that Fox is asking Biden to resign, right?

"Oh, that's just one one host, and it's not in the news cycle"

You're smart enough to know this is a stupid line of thinking.

Or am I to assume that it's yet another coincidence that you're parroting yet another FoxNation talking point: "Media is biased for Dems; Hunter's laptop is SO serious; election fraud; Deep State" etc. etc.

Should I just add this to the pile of FoxNonsense that you don't REALLY believe, and are trying to sell as a original thought from Old Salt?

Look at the total content of the WP Opinion section & tell me which way it's slanted & who it advantages.
Even when talking about EV setbacks, they claim it's just a temporary retrenchment & that they will prevail.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/columns/

WP giving auto industry cover. They are bailing on EV…(I personally prefer plug in hybrid but not taking a stupid short position against EV like you obviously have)

https://www.spglobal.com/mobility/en/to ... 3.5%20tons).

[old salt]

Here's that rotten ol' WaPo, giving Kamala a pass today, Old Salt.

Want help with your excuses as to how this "doesn't count" as criticism of Kamala?

The times demand serious economic ideas. Harris supplies gimmicks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... -gimmicks/

That's an editorial.

Right. That means that it's not criticism.

Why Isn't Kamala Harris Giving Interviews

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/08/busi ... views.html

I can do this all day. You're simply wrong. Always have been with your claims. Stories everywhere about Kamala dodging interviews.

Now what? They're doing as you ask.

That means it's tucked on 1/2 of a back page. It's not in the News section & it's just one piece in the Opinion section.
It's their obligatory complaint, as supposedly unbiased journalists. It does not impact their overall favorable & supportive coverage & slant on Harris & the Dems.

Right. No matter what, you're all set with your claims. Neat. If outlets don't do exactly what you want, well obviously they're biased and corrupt. Btw.....folks read the Times online by and large. There is no such thing as "a back page".

You know: I can play this same game with your claims that Fox is asking Biden to resign, right?

"Oh, that's just one one host, and it's not in the news cycle"

You're smart enough to know this is a stupid line of thinking.

Or am I to assume that it's yet another coincidence that you're parroting yet another FoxNation talking point: "Media is biased for Dems; Hunter's laptop is SO serious; election fraud; Deep State" etc. etc.

Should I just add this to the pile of FoxNonsense that you don't REALLY believe, and are trying to sell as a original thought from Old Salt?

Look at the total content of the WP Opinion section & tell me which way it's slanted & who it advantages.
Even when talking about EV setbacks, they claim it's just a temporary retrenchment & that they will prevail.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/columns/

So.....move the goalposts from "they're not criticizing Kamala"....to EV's?

You first moved the goalposts. I'm within your goal lines.

Or am I to assume that it's yet another coincidence that you're parroting yet another FoxNation talking point: "Media is biased for Dems; Hunter's laptop is SO serious; election fraud; Deep State" etc. etc.

[a fan]

Here's that rotten ol' WaPo, giving Kamala a pass today, Old Salt.

Want help with your excuses as to how this "doesn't count" as criticism of Kamala?

The times demand serious economic ideas. Harris supplies gimmicks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... -gimmicks/

That's an editorial.

Right. That means that it's not criticism.

Why Isn't Kamala Harris Giving Interviews

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/08/busi ... views.html

I can do this all day. You're simply wrong. Always have been with your claims. Stories everywhere about Kamala dodging interviews.

Now what? They're doing as you ask.

That means it's tucked on 1/2 of a back page. It's not in the News section & it's just one piece in the Opinion section.
It's their obligatory complaint, as supposedly unbiased journalists. It does not impact their overall favorable & supportive coverage & slant on Harris & the Dems.

Right. No matter what, you're all set with your claims. Neat. If outlets don't do exactly what you want, well obviously they're biased and corrupt. Btw.....folks read the Times online by and large. There is no such thing as "a back page".

You know: I can play this same game with your claims that Fox is asking Biden to resign, right?

"Oh, that's just one one host, and it's not in the news cycle"

You're smart enough to know this is a stupid line of thinking.

Or am I to assume that it's yet another coincidence that you're parroting yet another FoxNation talking point: "Media is biased for Dems; Hunter's laptop is SO serious; election fraud; Deep State" etc. etc.

Should I just add this to the pile of FoxNonsense that you don't REALLY believe, and are trying to sell as a original thought from Old Salt?

Look at the total content of the WP Opinion section & tell me which way it's slanted & who it advantages.
Even when talking about EV setbacks, they claim it's just a temporary retrenchment & that they will prevail.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/columns/

So.....move the goalposts from "they're not criticizing Kamala"....to EV's?

You first moved the goalposts. I'm within your goal lines.

Or am I to assume that it's yet another coincidence that you're parroting yet another FoxNation talking point: "Media is biased for Dems; Hunter's laptop is SO serious; election fraud; Deep State" etc. etc.

Oh, so you're adding a FoxNation talking point: EV's are bad. Got it.

How does this help your case? You want all US media stories to be told from the perspective and slant of a Boomer Republican....and are shocked when you don't get catered to, is that it?

That's like watching children's cartoons, and getting mad that they don't run advertisements pitching arthritis medication.

[cradleandshoot]

Here's that rotten ol' WaPo, giving Kamala a pass today, Old Salt.

Want help with your excuses as to how this "doesn't count" as criticism of Kamala?

The times demand serious economic ideas. Harris supplies gimmicks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... -gimmicks/

That's an editorial.

Right. That means that it's not criticism.

Why Isn't Kamala Harris Giving Interviews

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/08/busi ... views.html

I can do this all day. You're simply wrong. Always have been with your claims. Stories everywhere about Kamala dodging interviews.

Now what? They're doing as you ask.

That means it's tucked on 1/2 of a back page. It's not in the News section & it's just one piece in the Opinion section.
It's their obligatory complaint, as supposedly unbiased journalists. It does not impact their overall favorable & supportive coverage & slant on Harris & the Dems.

Right. No matter what, you're all set with your claims. Neat. If outlets don't do exactly what you want, well obviously they're biased and corrupt. Btw.....folks read the Times online by and large. There is no such thing as "a back page".

You know: I can play this same game with your claims that Fox is asking Biden to resign, right?

"Oh, that's just one one host, and it's not in the news cycle"

You're smart enough to know this is a stupid line of thinking.

Or am I to assume that it's yet another coincidence that you're parroting yet another FoxNation talking point: "Media is biased for Dems; Hunter's laptop is SO serious; election fraud; Deep State" etc. etc.

Should I just add this to the pile of FoxNonsense that you don't REALLY believe, and are trying to sell as a original thought from Old Salt?

Look at the total content of the WP Opinion section & tell me which way it's slanted & who it advantages.
Even when talking about EV setbacks, they claim it's just a temporary retrenchment & that they will prevail.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/columns/

So.....move the goalposts from "they're not criticizing Kamala"....to EV's?

You first moved the goalposts. I'm within your goal lines.

Or am I to assume that it's yet another coincidence that you're parroting yet another FoxNation talking point: "Media is biased for Dems; Hunter's laptop is SO serious; election fraud; Deep State" etc. etc.

Oh, so you're adding a FoxNation talking point: EV's are bad. Got it.

How does this help your case? You want all US media stories to be told from the perspective and slant of a Boomer Republican....and are shocked when you don't get catered to, is that it?

That's like watching children's cartoons, and getting mad that they don't run advertisements pitching arthritis medication.

EVs are not bad. What is bad is when your government tells you that in the near future they are the only vehicles they will allow you to buy. That is bad my man...very bad.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Kind of like government mandating that women must take every pregnancy to term. "That is bad, my man...very bad."

[cradleandshoot]

Kind of like government mandating that women must take every pregnancy to term. "That is bad, my man...very bad."

Except that your incorrect counselor. The government is not mandating any such thing. The government is doing what Justice Rehnquist argued in his R v W dissent. Abortion should be a states right voted on by the states. Are you now arguing that abortion is good...very good?

[Seacoaster(1)]

Kind of like government mandating that women must take every pregnancy to term. "That is bad, my man...very bad."

Except that your incorrect counselor. The government is not mandating any such thing. The government is doing what Justice Rehnquist argued in his R v W dissent. Abortion should be a states right voted on by the states. Are you now arguing that abortion is good...very good?

Dumb. So that we have a patchwork of different laws from state to state concerning how women will or will not have control over their bodies and the decisions that make them fully citizens? Dumb, and knowingly deceptive.

Arkansas law provides that the termination of a pregnancy is illegal, with the sole ambiguous exception of when it is necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman. Not when it is therapeutically called for in a physician's judgment, or in the judgment of the woman. There has to be a finding that the pregnancy places the woman's life in peril. She'd be safer in an electric car.

[cradleandshoot]

Kind of like government mandating that women must take every pregnancy to term. "That is bad, my man...very bad."

Except that your incorrect counselor. The government is not mandating any such thing. The government is doing what Justice Rehnquist argued in his R v W dissent. Abortion should be a states right voted on by the states. Are you now arguing that abortion is good...very good?

Dumb. So that we have a patchwork of different laws from state to state concerning how women will or will not have control over their bodies and the decisions that make them fully citizens? Dumb, and knowingly deceptive.

Arkansas law provides that the termination of a pregnancy is illegal, with the sole ambiguous exception of when it is necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman. Not when it is therapeutically called for in a physician's judgment, or in the judgment of the woman. There has to be a finding that the pregnancy places the woman's life in peril. She'd be safer in an electric car.

It may be dumb to you. Gun laws also differ from state to state. That is the downside to states rights. The alternative isn't much better. That would be the federal government making all of these decisions for every American. The founding fathers clearly did not want that to happen. I think the founding fathers were well aware of the shortcomings. They were willing to pass that responsibility over to the states.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Kind of like government mandating that women must take every pregnancy to term. "That is bad, my man...very bad."

Except that your incorrect counselor. The government is not mandating any such thing. The government is doing what Justice Rehnquist argued in his R v W dissent. Abortion should be a states right voted on by the states. Are you now arguing that abortion is good...very good?

That's still the government mandating it. Just State government. And Trump and many R's are cool with a federal mandate.

And you're on here all the time complaining about the NY State government mandates. Good job cherry picking

[cradleandshoot]

Kind of like government mandating that women must take every pregnancy to term. "That is bad, my man...very bad."

Except that your incorrect counselor. The government is not mandating any such thing. The government is doing what Justice Rehnquist argued in his R v W dissent. Abortion should be a states right voted on by the states. Are you now arguing that abortion is good...very good?

That's still the government mandating it. Just State government. And Trump and many R's are cool with a federal mandate.

And you're on here all the time complaining about the NY State government mandates. Good job cherry picking

Incorrect, I am on here all the time complaining about NY State policies. Those do include some petty issues where the State of NY is telling me what I can can and can't do. I don't want to purchase an EV. NYS is telling me I have no choice. The State of NY is telling me what what type of stove I can buy. The State of NY is telling me what kind of furnace I can heat my home with. The State of NY is telling me what kind of dryer they will allow me to use. Would you like me to go on? If I'm going to spend 30 grand plus on a new automobile I sure as heck don't want YOU or people that are like minded with YOU telling me what I am or should be allowed to drive.
FTR your girl Kamala is running on a campaign pledge that she doesn't want government telling us peons what to do. Is she bullchiting the American people? I think she is. What say you ?

[a fan]

Kind of like government mandating that women must take every pregnancy to term. "That is bad, my man...very bad."

Except that your incorrect counselor. The government is not mandating any such thing. The government is doing what Justice Rehnquist argued in his R v W dissent. Abortion should be a states right voted on by the states. Are you now arguing that abortion is good...very good?

That's still the government mandating it. Just State government. And Trump and many R's are cool with a federal mandate.

And you're on here all the time complaining about the NY State government mandates. Good job cherry picking

Incorrect, I am on here all the time complaining about NY State policies. Those do include some petty issues where the State of NY is telling me what I can can and can't do. I don't want to purchase an EV. NYS is telling me I have no choice. The State of NY is telling me what what type of stove I can buy. The State of NY is telling me what kind of furnace I can heat my home with. The State of NY is telling me what kind of dryer they will allow me to use. Would you like me to go on? If I'm going to spend 30 grand plus on a new automobile I sure as heck don't want YOU or people that are like minded with YOU telling me what I am or should be allowed to drive.

Cradle isn't wrong. But it doesn't take effect until 2035, and only applies to limited vehicle classes.

I'd rather it take the form of incentives than mandates.....or as we've done with rail vs. car .gov subsidies, made one form of transport more expensive than the other. Unfortunately, we made rails more expensive with our .gov spending choices....but we can allow gas cars, and force consumers to make a economic choice.

NYState? They're investing in their electrical grid as well. Bully for them for working all sides of the issue. It doesn't look perfect, but they're at least thinking about where all this electricity is supposed to come from.

[MDlaxfan76]

"EVs are not bad. What is bad is when your government tells you that in the near future they are the only vehicles they will allow you to buy. That is bad my man...very bad."

Which "government" is mandating that you will only be able to buy an EV in the "near future"?

And which government is telling you what that "near future" is? When?
And when are you going to not have choices between makes and models of new cars?

"government" has been requiring all sorts of improvements in food, chemicals, drugs, equipment for many years, for the public good. We elect the government to do so, it's not a dictatorship or monarchy, we ask them to do this for us because we as individuals and corporations don't always pay for the full costs of our decisions.

We're dealing with externalities, costs to society and to other taxpayers for actions taken by individuals and corporations.

And carbon fuel engines produce some major externalities.
Come up with a better answer if you don't want EVs.

[Typical Lax Dad]

"EVs are not bad. What is bad is when your government tells you that in the near future they are the only vehicles they will allow you to buy. That is bad my man...very bad."

Which "government" is mandating that you will only be able to buy an EV in the "near future"?

And which government is telling you what that "near future" is? When?
And when are you going to not have choices between makes and models of new cars?

"government" has been requiring all sorts of improvements in food, chemicals, drugs, equipment for many years, for the public good. We elect the government to do so, it's not a dictatorship or monarchy, we ask them to do this for us because we as individuals and corporations don't always pay for the full costs of our decisions.

We're dealing with externalities, costs to society and to other taxpayers for actions taken by individuals and corporations.

And carbon fuel engines produce some major externalities.
Come up with a better answer if you don't want EVs.

I watched Deep Water Horizon last night. The government should stay out of oil company business.

[cradleandshoot]

"EVs are not bad. What is bad is when your government tells you that in the near future they are the only vehicles they will allow you to buy. That is bad my man...very bad."

Which "government" is mandating that you will only be able to buy an EV in the "near future"?

And which government is telling you what that "near future" is? When?
And when are you going to not have choices between makes and models of new cars?

"government" has been requiring all sorts of improvements in food, chemicals, drugs, equipment for many years, for the public good. We elect the government to do so, it's not a dictatorship or monarchy, we ask them to do this for us because we as individuals and corporations don't always pay for the full costs of our decisions.

We're dealing with externalities, costs to society and to other taxpayers for actions taken by individuals and corporations.

And carbon fuel engines produce some major externalities.
Come up with a better answer if you don't want EVs.

Gov.Hochul telling me what kind of car I can buy undercuts your argument all day long. I drive a 2016 Toyota Corolla. I love my IC engine car. I will NEVER purchase an EV. If Gov Hochul tries to dictate to me that is the only option Im allowed to purchase..
Well then the both of you can go and screw yourselves. My wife and I have a brand new gas oven and dryer. Our hot water heater heater is brand new gas. I sure as hell don't need YOU telling me how I should run my house or what type of energy should be our preference. I already have a governor trying to dictate that to me. This is where you can go mind your business.

[kramerica.inc]

A good read on the topic:

https://hls.harvard.edu/today/what-the- ... -vehicles/

[PizzaSnake]

"EVs are not bad. What is bad is when your government tells you that in the near future they are the only vehicles they will allow you to buy. That is bad my man...very bad."

Which "government" is mandating that you will only be able to buy an EV in the "near future"?

And which government is telling you what that "near future" is? When?
And when are you going to not have choices between makes and models of new cars?

"government" has been requiring all sorts of improvements in food, chemicals, drugs, equipment for many years, for the public good. We elect the government to do so, it's not a dictatorship or monarchy, we ask them to do this for us because we as individuals and corporations don't always pay for the full costs of our decisions.

We're dealing with externalities, costs to society and to other taxpayers for actions taken by individuals and corporations.

And carbon fuel engines produce some major externalities.
Come up with a better answer if you don't want EVs.

Here’s a modest, Menckenian solution: reduce human population to just under 1 billion. Stat.

[a fan]

A good read on the topic:

https://hls.harvard.edu/today/what-the- ... -vehicles/

To me? EV's don't work without Nuclear. Period. Until we wake up to this fact, we'll be natural gas and/or coal cars for at least half of the electricity produced. California, of all places, is only 34% renewable energy.

When environmentalists figure this out, THEN EVs will be great.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Kind of like government mandating that women must take every pregnancy to term. "That is bad, my man...very bad."

Except that your incorrect counselor. The government is not mandating any such thing. The government is doing what Justice Rehnquist argued in his R v W dissent. Abortion should be a states right voted on by the states. Are you now arguing that abortion is good...very good?

That's still the government mandating it. Just State government. And Trump and many R's are cool with a federal mandate.

And you're on here all the time complaining about the NY State government mandates. Good job cherry picking

Incorrect, I am on here all the time complaining about NY State policies. Those do include some petty issues where the State of NY is telling me what I can can and can't do. I don't want to purchase an EV. NYS is telling me I have no choice. The State of NY is telling me what what type of stove I can buy. The State of NY is telling me what kind of furnace I can heat my home with. The State of NY is telling me what kind of dryer they will allow me to use. Would you like me to go on? If I'm going to spend 30 grand plus on a new automobile I sure as heck don't want YOU or people that are like minded with YOU telling me what I am or should be allowed to drive.
FTR your girl Kamala is running on a campaign pledge that she doesn't want government telling us peons what to do. Is she bullchiting the American people? I think she is. What say you ?

Please do go on, here's some more rope. You just said state governments weren't mandating anything when state governments force women to give birth, and those mandates are AOK with you. And now you're saying that NY is forcing what type of stove you can buy, forcing what type of furnace you can buy, etc. Those are mandates.

You have to decide whether you like state mandates or not. You can't wizz on seacoaster's head and try to tell him it's raining.

Personally, I'm fine with state and federal governments putting limits on some things that provide an obvious benefit for society at large. Like limiting lead in gasoline and water, or mandating taxes for fire departments, roads, etc. If you don't like those kind of mandates, then yes, you wouldn't like me telling you what you're allowed to drive.

[PizzaSnake]

A good read on the topic:

https://hls.harvard.edu/today/what-the- ... -vehicles/

To me? EV's don't work without Nuclear. Period. Until we wake up to this fact, we'll be natural gas and/or coal cars for at least half of the electricity produced. California, of all places, is only 34% renewable energy.

When environmentalists figure this out, THEN EVs will be great.

So buy the modular Chinese thorium reactors? Pity we (the US) ignored yet another opportunity funded by US taxpayer dollars. I wonder why?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/24 ... own-proof/

[cradleandshoot]

Kind of like government mandating that women must take every pregnancy to term. "That is bad, my man...very bad."

Except that your incorrect counselor. The government is not mandating any such thing. The government is doing what Justice Rehnquist argued in his R v W dissent. Abortion should be a states right voted on by the states. Are you now arguing that abortion is good...very good?

That's still the government mandating it. Just State government. And Trump and many R's are cool with a federal mandate.

And you're on here all the time complaining about the NY State government mandates. Good job cherry picking

Incorrect, I am on here all the time complaining about NY State policies. Those do include some petty issues where the State of NY is telling me what I can can and can't do. I don't want to purchase an EV. NYS is telling me I have no choice. The State of NY is telling me what what type of stove I can buy. The State of NY is telling me what kind of furnace I can heat my home with. The State of NY is telling me what kind of dryer they will allow me to use. Would you like me to go on? If I'm going to spend 30 grand plus on a new automobile I sure as heck don't want YOU or people that are like minded with YOU telling me what I am or should be allowed to drive.
FTR your girl Kamala is running on a campaign pledge that she doesn't want government telling us peons what to do. Is she bullchiting the American people? I think she is. What say you ?

Please do go on, here's some more rope. You just said state governments weren't mandating anything when state governments force women to give birth, and those mandates are AOK with you. And now you're saying that NY is forcing what type of stove you can buy, forcing what type of furnace you can buy, etc. Those are mandates.

You have to decide whether you like state mandates or not. You can't wizz on seacoaster's head and try to tell him it's raining.

Personally, I'm fine with state and federal governments putting limits on some things that provide an obvious benefit for society at large. Like limiting lead in gasoline and water, or mandating taxes for fire departments, roads, etc. If you don't like those kind of mandates, then yes, you wouldn't like me telling you what you're allowed to drive.

I live in NYS accepting the mandates that come down the pike are something I have no say in. The Democrats run this state with an iron fist. Why do you think that Kamala Harris doesn't need to spend 2 cents of political capital in this state. I'll drive my Toyota Corolla until the effing wheels fall off of it. If you wanna drive an EV..knock yourself the f**k out. Kamala Harris has already declared she doesn't want big government telling Americans what to do. Are you now telling us that she is lying? No need to reply. I already know Harris is lying.