'nuff said.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance#cite_note-0According to former editor Bill Emmott "The Economist's philosophy has always been liberal, not conservative"
However if you read the entire wiki, they've held stances all over the political spectrum. And they consider themselves extreme center. They did endorse Obama over McCain. Then again, history has proven that liberals have always been better for the economy than conservatives, so it wouldn't surprise me if they tend to lean liberal.From wiki:
History has proven no such thing, only supreme idiots would be gullible enough to believe that there is a way to actually isolate all the factors and prove such a concept. I'm sure you are one of the gullible fools who would believe something like that.However if you read the entire wiki, they've held stances all over the political spectrum. And they consider themselves extreme center. They did endorse Obama over McCain. Then again, history has proven that liberals have always been better for the economy than conservatives, so it wouldn't surprise me if they tend to lean liberal.
Actually, it's both in this case.The Economist isn't liberal like you think it means liberal, it's liberal as in English classic liberalism, which is more like libertarianism (it's not American, so it's not really appropriate to use American politics terms anyway).
Of course. What else can he do? Leaving the bubble can only lead to having one's faith challenged by inconvenient information and ideas. Weak convictions are much too vulnerable for that. It is far better to remain hidden within the safety of that echo chamber, so one hears only that which reinforce one's faith. His masters will interpret the Economist article for him, and tell him why it is wrong.So instead of actually reading the article and debating the points it makes you simply look at the author and automatically assume it's bunk.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/mitt-romney-welfare-waivers_n_1832871.html?utm_hp_ref=politicsMultiple independent fact-checkers have said that Romney's ads are false, but Romney maintains they are correct.
"Well, we believe it's accurate," Romney told USA Today, in a portion of the interview that was provided to The Huffington Post.
Shocking. The man is quite possibly running the most dishonest campaign in American history, can't say I'm surprised that he even believes his own lies now.Apparently he believes the lies in his campaign commercials:
How does he mean liberal?According to former editor Bill Emmott "The Economist's philosophy has always been liberal, not conservative"
Yeah, I've seen this refutation of their pieces before and it's never made sense. They've been pro-Sarkozy, pro-Cameron and pro-austerity, but one convenient mention of, "No they're actually liberal!" and there's no longer a need to debate their words on their merit. Ridiculous and totally indicative of why American "conservatives" are getting a bad rap for being anti-intellectual.This thread is pretty laughable.
The Economist is now a liberal drag? Give me a break you loonies.
so unless it has a conservative bias then it's not worth reading or trustworthy enough for you?From wiki:
this newspaper finds much to like in the history of this uncharismatic but dogged man, from his obvious business acumen to the way he worked across the political aisle as governor to get health reform passed and the state budget deficit down. We share many of his views about the excessive growth of regulation and of the state in general in America, and the effect that this has on investment, productivity and growth. After four years of soaring oratory and intermittent reforms, why not bring in a more businesslike figure who might start fixing the problems with America’s finances?