Excuse me mykevermin, but the media and the Obama administration repeatedly use the saying that 50 million AMERICANs are uninsured. But I'm pretty sure foreigners (meaning citizens of other nations) are NOT Americans, and thus should not be included in this statistic. My point remains valid, the article quotes the US Census Bureau (or is that a questionable source to you?). While 40 some million is still a large number I would like my president to be using the correct statistic before he increases my taxes.
Obama is losing the independent vote.
- Thread starter Ruined
- Start date
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
So you make > $1m per year? Then your taxes are going up.
Or if you're a member of the other 99.5% of the population, then you're just making things up.
Or if you're a member of the other 99.5% of the population, then you're just making things up.
fullmetalfan720
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']So you make > $1m per year? Then your taxes are going up.
Or if you're a member of the other 99.5% of the population, then you're just making things up.[/QUOTE]
I suppose you didn't watch Obama's speech last week?
Or if you're a member of the other 99.5% of the population, then you're just making things up.[/QUOTE]
I suppose you didn't watch Obama's speech last week?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
watch, no. listen, yes. this is what he said.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
So you're rolling on 100% speculation then.
[quote name='kram']But I'm pretty sure foreigners (meaning citizens of other nations) are NOT Americans, and thus should not be included in this statistic.[/QUOTE]
Including American citizens?
Why are you ignoring facts A and B I pointed out earlier?
Including American citizens?
Why are you ignoring facts A and B I pointed out earlier?
Last edited by a moderator:
fullmetalfan720
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']watch, no. listen, yes. this is what he said.[/QUOTE]
I take that as meaning middle-class families taxes might go up. Notice how he adds the word primarily instead of just saying this:
If I see a proposal that is funded through taxing middle-class families, I’m going to be opposed to that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/us/politics/23obama.html?_r=2&hp
I take that as meaning middle-class families taxes might go up. Notice how he adds the word primarily instead of just saying this:
If I see a proposal that is funded through taxing middle-class families, I’m going to be opposed to that.
[quote name='mykevermin']So you're rolling on 100% speculation then.[/QUOTE]
Yup. My magic crystal ball broke the other day when my wife was cleaning and knocked it off the counter. It was a big mess and every so often, we still find tiny shards of glass. Perhaps I could borrow your crystal ball, since it seems to work so well.
Yup. My magic crystal ball broke the other day when my wife was cleaning and knocked it off the counter. It was a big mess and every so often, we still find tiny shards of glass. Perhaps I could borrow your crystal ball, since it seems to work so well.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='kram']Excuse me mykevermin, but the media and the Obama administration repeatedly use the saying that 50 million AMERICANs are uninsured. But I'm pretty sure foreigners (meaning citizens of other nations) are NOT Americans, and thus should not be included in this statistic. My point remains valid, the article quotes the US Census Bureau (or is that a questionable source to you?). While 40 some million is still a large number I would like my president to be using the correct statistic before he increases my taxes.[/QUOTE]
Actually that number is even more inflated than you think. Here you go:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2007/20070718153509.aspx
The "47 million Americans don't have health insurance" is a crock. The true number is 8-14 million, if we don't count those who can afford insurance but decline to have it because they don't want to pay for it even though they have the means. Now, that many people without insurance who are unable to pay for it is still a big problem, of course, and there are many other problems with our system, rising costs being a big one. But typically proponents of systemic change have vastly exaggerated what we are talking about here.
Actually that number is even more inflated than you think. Here you go:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2007/20070718153509.aspx
The "47 million Americans don't have health insurance" is a crock. The true number is 8-14 million, if we don't count those who can afford insurance but decline to have it because they don't want to pay for it even though they have the means. Now, that many people without insurance who are unable to pay for it is still a big problem, of course, and there are many other problems with our system, rising costs being a big one. But typically proponents of systemic change have vastly exaggerated what we are talking about here.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/27/senate-group-dropping-dem_n_245839.html
Looks like Health care isn't even on the table anymore. The special interest groups and lobbyists win again, not that I mind much as this is one issue I feel pretty strongly against.
Either way, next year is an election year, and a lot of the Democrats are going to have tough enough battles as it is, including Dodd, Boxer, Bennet, and Specter, as well the seats in New York and Illinois which will be a complete toss up as of now. Don't expect anyone running for re-election next year to touch any of these hot button issues with a 50 foot pole, unless they're in a situation where their re-election is all but assured. The same goes for the House where there are numerous seats that will have tough re-election campaigns as well.
Looks like Health care isn't even on the table anymore. The special interest groups and lobbyists win again, not that I mind much as this is one issue I feel pretty strongly against.
Either way, next year is an election year, and a lot of the Democrats are going to have tough enough battles as it is, including Dodd, Boxer, Bennet, and Specter, as well the seats in New York and Illinois which will be a complete toss up as of now. Don't expect anyone running for re-election next year to touch any of these hot button issues with a 50 foot pole, unless they're in a situation where their re-election is all but assured. The same goes for the House where there are numerous seats that will have tough re-election campaigns as well.
[quote name='spmahn']Looks like Health care isn't even on the table anymore.[/QUOTE]
Awesome!
Looks like the dem politicians in the swing states want to keep their jobs, as they would surely lose them in 2010 if they saddled the country with more debt while simultaneously destroying the best healthcare system in the world.
And just pre-emptively in case someone whips out the "us is 37th" misinformation, here are some links on how socialistic countries rigged that study to make themselves look better:
http://www.patientpowernow.org/2008/06/06/united-states-health-care-ranking-who/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/why_the_us_ranks_low_on_whos_h.html
The only downside is that the best care in the world isn't the cheapest care in the world, but what is more important spending money on than your health? Surely not video games.
EDIT: Also wanted to comment that I do see the "preexisting condition" clause mentioned in the article you posted that some insurance companies use to prevent coverage or charge huge premiums as a problem due to some people who have chronic health problems; I could see that being worked on. It would also be nice to see them work on reducing the cost of COBRA in between jobs, though I don't see that as a critical matter.
Awesome!
Looks like the dem politicians in the swing states want to keep their jobs, as they would surely lose them in 2010 if they saddled the country with more debt while simultaneously destroying the best healthcare system in the world.
And just pre-emptively in case someone whips out the "us is 37th" misinformation, here are some links on how socialistic countries rigged that study to make themselves look better:
http://www.patientpowernow.org/2008/06/06/united-states-health-care-ranking-who/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/why_the_us_ranks_low_on_whos_h.html
The only downside is that the best care in the world isn't the cheapest care in the world, but what is more important spending money on than your health? Surely not video games.
EDIT: Also wanted to comment that I do see the "preexisting condition" clause mentioned in the article you posted that some insurance companies use to prevent coverage or charge huge premiums as a problem due to some people who have chronic health problems; I could see that being worked on. It would also be nice to see them work on reducing the cost of COBRA in between jobs, though I don't see that as a critical matter.
Last edited by a moderator:
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
^ Ayup. We never opted for Cobra. The only thing it has going for it is a cool name.
[quote name='mykevermin']^ Ayup. We never opted for Cobra. The only thing it has going for it is a cool name.[/QUOTE]
What is needed is a public option. Not having one (and Cobra is no substitute) is the cost of coddling insurance companies and other mega corporations just like with the Medicare prescription drug expansion, it happens because these companies buy off politicians. It is not even as if that fact is hidden.
What is needed is a public option. Not having one (and Cobra is no substitute) is the cost of coddling insurance companies and other mega corporations just like with the Medicare prescription drug expansion, it happens because these companies buy off politicians. It is not even as if that fact is hidden.
Last edited by a moderator:
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='OkeyJokey']With picks like sotomayor I can see why.[/QUOTE]
Regardless of how you feel about Sotomayor, her nomination is one thing that is not bringing Obama's poll numbers down. The huge deficit and massive spending increases top the list, then add debacles like cap-and-trade and all the crazy trial balloons being floated on health care to the "stimulus" being predictably ineffective and the unemployment almost certain to hit double-digits -- that's what's driving poll numbers. The funny thing about Sotomayor is if Republicans actually believed what she said at the hearings, she'd be unanimously confirmed (obviously they don't believe her at all; time will tell, eh?).
Regardless of how you feel about Sotomayor, her nomination is one thing that is not bringing Obama's poll numbers down. The huge deficit and massive spending increases top the list, then add debacles like cap-and-trade and all the crazy trial balloons being floated on health care to the "stimulus" being predictably ineffective and the unemployment almost certain to hit double-digits -- that's what's driving poll numbers. The funny thing about Sotomayor is if Republicans actually believed what she said at the hearings, she'd be unanimously confirmed (obviously they don't believe her at all; time will tell, eh?).
[quote name='Ruined']...while simultaneously destroying the best healthcare system in the world.
And just pre-emptively in case someone whips out the "us is 37th" misinformation, here are some links on how socialistic countries rigged that study to make themselves look better:
http://www.patientpowernow.org/2008/06/06/united-states-health-care-ranking-who/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/why_the_us_ranks_low_on_whos_h.html
The only downside is that the best care in the world isn't the cheapest care in the world, but what is more important spending money on than your health?[/QUOTE]
You linked to John Stossel. You get both a FAIL and a "come the
on" for that one.
And just pre-emptively in case someone whips out the "us is 37th" misinformation, here are some links on how socialistic countries rigged that study to make themselves look better:
http://www.patientpowernow.org/2008/06/06/united-states-health-care-ranking-who/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/why_the_us_ranks_low_on_whos_h.html
The only downside is that the best care in the world isn't the cheapest care in the world, but what is more important spending money on than your health?[/QUOTE]
You linked to John Stossel. You get both a FAIL and a "come the
on" for that one.
KingBroly
CAGiversary!
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']i would think sotomayor is very low on the reasons why obamas polls have taken a dip[/QUOTE]
I think Cobra is like...$500 a month. It's been a couple of years since I heard a number so it might be higher.
What I find funny is that Obama's been talking about health care reform a lot for about 2-3 weeks straight, and during that time period, we've seen a good decline in his poll numbers (or at least the media starting picking up on it).
I think Cobra is like...$500 a month. It's been a couple of years since I heard a number so it might be higher.
What I find funny is that Obama's been talking about health care reform a lot for about 2-3 weeks straight, and during that time period, we've seen a good decline in his poll numbers (or at least the media starting picking up on it).
[quote name='trq']You linked to John Stossel. You get both a FAIL and a "come the on" for that one.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the intelligent & well-thought out response.
Anyway, Obama's numbers on healthcare look like they are continuing to plummet:
[quote name='The New York Times/CBS 7/30/09 poll on Obama Healthcare']
* 69% of respondents believe Obama's plan will hurt the quality of their own healthcare.
* 73% believe it would limit their access to tests and treatment.
* 62% believe Democrats' proposals would require them to change doctors.
* 76% believe healthcare reform will lead to them paying higher taxes.
* 77% expect their healthcare costs to rise.[/quote]
Its pretty obvious why independents are bailing on Obama when he is pressing this unwanted healthcare plan on the general public. IMO the more he presses it the more his numbers will drop. Same goes for Cap & Trade.
on" for that one.[/QUOTE]Thanks for the intelligent & well-thought out response.
Anyway, Obama's numbers on healthcare look like they are continuing to plummet:
[quote name='The New York Times/CBS 7/30/09 poll on Obama Healthcare']
* 69% of respondents believe Obama's plan will hurt the quality of their own healthcare.
* 73% believe it would limit their access to tests and treatment.
* 62% believe Democrats' proposals would require them to change doctors.
* 76% believe healthcare reform will lead to them paying higher taxes.
* 77% expect their healthcare costs to rise.[/quote]
Its pretty obvious why independents are bailing on Obama when he is pressing this unwanted healthcare plan on the general public. IMO the more he presses it the more his numbers will drop. Same goes for Cap & Trade.
archangelreb
CAGiversary!
He was asked about a HR on pg 16 of the bill that would grandfather current coverage but would make writing a new policy illeagal. What's up with that??
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
We're so proud of the success we're having convincing the American public that this misinformation is actually true!
I read Chris Hedges' "Empire of Illusion" a few weeks ago. I loved it and hated it all at the same time. The best worst book I ever read. But you're really peddling, indirectly, that the thesis of Hedges' book is correct. We're not a society who is interested in facts, or a society interested in disputing things with evidence. We're a society so inundated with numbers that are manufactured, arguments that have no basis in the real world, and elements of intellectual debate so nonexistent that we're willing to link to a John "HE HAS A MOUSTACHE" Stossel editorial that's incorrectly thought out as genuine evidence that someone out there is wrong.
How many people believe in God? How many live their lives according to these beliefs? Correct or not, we modify out behavior based on mere perception, with no interest in genuine discovery for ourselves. If you want to argue that the plan is a bad idea, feel free to (though there is no plan, yet, haha). But arguing that the public isn't interested in a plan is immaterial to the point - it just shows what people believe - the same people who live in a society where we're all woefully anti-intellectual and perpetually misinformed.
FFS, turn on the news and you might get THIS chestnut of "data" and/or "facts."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEuEkyzTKFY
I read Chris Hedges' "Empire of Illusion" a few weeks ago. I loved it and hated it all at the same time. The best worst book I ever read. But you're really peddling, indirectly, that the thesis of Hedges' book is correct. We're not a society who is interested in facts, or a society interested in disputing things with evidence. We're a society so inundated with numbers that are manufactured, arguments that have no basis in the real world, and elements of intellectual debate so nonexistent that we're willing to link to a John "HE HAS A MOUSTACHE" Stossel editorial that's incorrectly thought out as genuine evidence that someone out there is wrong.
How many people believe in God? How many live their lives according to these beliefs? Correct or not, we modify out behavior based on mere perception, with no interest in genuine discovery for ourselves. If you want to argue that the plan is a bad idea, feel free to (though there is no plan, yet, haha). But arguing that the public isn't interested in a plan is immaterial to the point - it just shows what people believe - the same people who live in a society where we're all woefully anti-intellectual and perpetually misinformed.
FFS, turn on the news and you might get THIS chestnut of "data" and/or "facts."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEuEkyzTKFY
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']FFS, turn on the news and you might get THIS chestnut of "data" and/or "facts."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEuEkyzTKFY[/QUOTE]
Wow, that is stunningly stupid. Probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard O'Reilly say.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEuEkyzTKFY[/QUOTE]
Wow, that is stunningly stupid. Probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard O'Reilly say.
[quote name='KingBroly']I think Cobra is like...$500 a month. It's been a couple of years since I heard a number so it might be higher.
What I find funny is that Obama's been talking about health care reform a lot for about 2-3 weeks straight, and during that time period, we've seen a good decline in his poll numbers (or at least the media starting picking up on it).[/QUOTE]
And yet support for a public option is almost universally strong in polls.
Maybe people are getting upset because whatever plan that passes might not be socialist enough?
What I find funny is that Obama's been talking about health care reform a lot for about 2-3 weeks straight, and during that time period, we've seen a good decline in his poll numbers (or at least the media starting picking up on it).[/QUOTE]
And yet support for a public option is almost universally strong in polls.
Maybe people are getting upset because whatever plan that passes might not be socialist enough?
[quote name='mykevermin']We're so proud of the success we're having convincing the American public that this misinformation is actually true!
I read Chris Hedges' "Empire of Illusion" a few weeks ago. I loved it and hated it all at the same time. The best worst book I ever read. But you're really peddling, indirectly, that the thesis of Hedges' book is correct. We're not a society who is interested in facts, or a society interested in disputing things with evidence. We're a society so inundated with numbers that are manufactured, arguments that have no basis in the real world, and elements of intellectual debate so nonexistent that we're willing to link to a John "HE HAS A MOUSTACHE" Stossel editorial that's incorrectly thought out as genuine evidence that someone out there is wrong.
How many people believe in God? How many live their lives according to these beliefs? Correct or not, we modify out behavior based on mere perception, with no interest in genuine discovery for ourselves. If you want to argue that the plan is a bad idea, feel free to (though there is no plan, yet, haha). But arguing that the public isn't interested in a plan is immaterial to the point - it just shows what people believe - the same people who live in a society where we're all woefully anti-intellectual and perpetually misinformed.[/QUOTE]
Sadly this is true, and the worst part is that there seems to be absolutely no voice of reason anywhere, or at least not one anyone is listening to. On the one side you get wharrgarbl from Bill O'Reilly, but on the other side you get the same crap every time you turn on the news and see a commercial essentially telling you that if you don't support public health care, you're going to end up uninsured, get cancer, and die. Why is it so hard for any of our leaders to lay the facts out on the table as they are and let the public decide, rather than trying to sway the opinions of the woefully uninformed through the use of extreme, or emotional arguments, half-truths, and straight up lies?
I read Chris Hedges' "Empire of Illusion" a few weeks ago. I loved it and hated it all at the same time. The best worst book I ever read. But you're really peddling, indirectly, that the thesis of Hedges' book is correct. We're not a society who is interested in facts, or a society interested in disputing things with evidence. We're a society so inundated with numbers that are manufactured, arguments that have no basis in the real world, and elements of intellectual debate so nonexistent that we're willing to link to a John "HE HAS A MOUSTACHE" Stossel editorial that's incorrectly thought out as genuine evidence that someone out there is wrong.
How many people believe in God? How many live their lives according to these beliefs? Correct or not, we modify out behavior based on mere perception, with no interest in genuine discovery for ourselves. If you want to argue that the plan is a bad idea, feel free to (though there is no plan, yet, haha). But arguing that the public isn't interested in a plan is immaterial to the point - it just shows what people believe - the same people who live in a society where we're all woefully anti-intellectual and perpetually misinformed.[/QUOTE]
Sadly this is true, and the worst part is that there seems to be absolutely no voice of reason anywhere, or at least not one anyone is listening to. On the one side you get wharrgarbl from Bill O'Reilly, but on the other side you get the same crap every time you turn on the news and see a commercial essentially telling you that if you don't support public health care, you're going to end up uninsured, get cancer, and die. Why is it so hard for any of our leaders to lay the facts out on the table as they are and let the public decide, rather than trying to sway the opinions of the woefully uninformed through the use of extreme, or emotional arguments, half-truths, and straight up lies?
[quote name='Ruined']Thanks for the intelligent & well-thought out response.[/QUOTE]
No. Seriously. The guy once advocated price gouging even in dire emergencies because then "the resources go to those who really need it." Aside from being so dumb he can't tell the difference between "need" and "afford," he's an unequivocal free market fundamentalist. He's the farthest thing from a trustworthy source regarding any topic even peripherally connected to the economy, since he's always going to take the same stance, no matter how asinine.
In short, he's a colossal douche with a questionable grasp of logic.
If you're trying to make your case by posting some information, whatever's coming from Stossel's mouth ranks somewhere between "whatever the Glen Beck is crying over tonight" and "a Dennis Miller joke about Sirhan Sirhan and Fawn Hall."
That is to say: it's worthless.
No. Seriously. The guy once advocated price gouging even in dire emergencies because then "the resources go to those who really need it." Aside from being so dumb he can't tell the difference between "need" and "afford," he's an unequivocal free market fundamentalist. He's the farthest thing from a trustworthy source regarding any topic even peripherally connected to the economy, since he's always going to take the same stance, no matter how asinine.
In short, he's a colossal douche with a questionable grasp of logic.
If you're trying to make your case by posting some information, whatever's coming from Stossel's mouth ranks somewhere between "whatever the
Glen Beck is crying over tonight" and "a Dennis Miller joke about Sirhan Sirhan and Fawn Hall."That is to say: it's worthless.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='spmahn']Sadly this is true, and the worst part is that there seems to be absolutely no voice of reason anywhere, or at least not one anyone is listening to. On the one side you get wharrgarbl from Bill O'Reilly, but on the other side you get the same crap every time you turn on the news and see a commercial essentially telling you that if you don't support public health care, you're going to end up uninsured, get cancer, and die. Why is it so hard for any of our leaders to lay the facts out on the table as they are and let the public decide, rather than trying to sway the opinions of the woefully uninformed through the use of extreme, or emotional arguments, half-truths, and straight up lies?[/QUOTE]
NYT, C-Span, and NPR are good food.
NYT, C-Span, and NPR are good food.
fullmetalfan720
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
I saw this in the paper today, and I thought, you've got to be shitting me:
They seriously expect poor people to give 12% of their income to health care? I wonder how many will actually be able to afford that? Especially when its mandated.
http://www.newsday.com/a-look-at-the-deal-worked-out-on-health-care-1.1335267
They seriously expect poor people to give 12% of their income to health care? I wonder how many will actually be able to afford that? Especially when its mandated.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']NYT, C-Span, and NPR are good food.[/QUOTE]
I sure hope you aren't referring to the New York Times.
I sure hope you aren't referring to the New York Times.
perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
He probably is.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Of course I am.
It's just like a roller coaster, thrust. You're only scared because you haven't tried it and your big brother told you it's mean and nasty.
It's just like a roller coaster, thrust. You're only scared because you haven't tried it and your big brother told you it's mean and nasty.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
Well C-Span is ok, and NPR is tolerable if you pretend Democracy Now doesn't exist, so 2/3 aint bad.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Pish-posh. People with little to no credibility have lambasted the NYT as "liberal" since McCarthy was in office, if not sooner.
[quote name='Ruined']NYT lost its credibility quite a while ago. Hence their near-bankruptcy, people just don't care to read the obviously slanted "news" anymore.[/QUOTE]
Uh-huh. Then explain the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Times.
Uh-huh. Then explain the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Times.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Ruined']NYT lost its credibility quite a while ago. Hence their near-bankruptcy, people just don't care to read the obviously slanted "news" anymore.[/QUOTE]
Agree that NYT has lost a lot of credibility, mainly for things like the McCain mistress story that turned out to be a fabrication and other partisan hackery. Conversely, The Washington Post has gained credibility, with me at least, over the years as they have slowly moved more toward the center from a NYT-left position years and years ago. Now they are center-left and don't reflexively mock any and all conservative positions or ideas.
But I digress. Your conclusion about slanted news is far off the mark. NYT is the exception, not the rule. The increasing popularity of things as diverse as Fox News and Huffington Post is testament to this trend. Unfortunately, many people, I'd say the vast majority, are intellectually lazy and much prefer to read something that they agree with as opposed to something challenging their viewpoint.
Bottom line is that there's nothing wrong with reading the NYT, HuffPo, Washington Times or watching Fox News, as long as you understand that you are most likely getting a very biased perspective. If you rely solely on the NYT for your news, you'd have just as slanted a view as if you watched Glenn Beck daily and nothing else.
Agree that NYT has lost a lot of credibility, mainly for things like the McCain mistress story that turned out to be a fabrication and other partisan hackery. Conversely, The Washington Post has gained credibility, with me at least, over the years as they have slowly moved more toward the center from a NYT-left position years and years ago. Now they are center-left and don't reflexively mock any and all conservative positions or ideas.
But I digress. Your conclusion about slanted news is far off the mark. NYT is the exception, not the rule. The increasing popularity of things as diverse as Fox News and Huffington Post is testament to this trend. Unfortunately, many people, I'd say the vast majority, are intellectually lazy and much prefer to read something that they agree with as opposed to something challenging their viewpoint.
Bottom line is that there's nothing wrong with reading the NYT, HuffPo, Washington Times or watching Fox News, as long as you understand that you are most likely getting a very biased perspective. If you rely solely on the NYT for your news, you'd have just as slanted a view as if you watched Glenn Beck daily and nothing else.
bread's done