If Bernie won the presidency, it might be the first time a Jewish family has moved into public housing that was left vacant by a black family. Breaking barriers.
"The Washington Free Beacon is an American web site that publishes news and associated content. It states it is "dedicated to uncovering the stories that the powers that be hope will never see the light of day" and producing "in-depth investigative reporting on a wide range of issues, including public policy, government affairs, international security, and media."[1] It was founded by Matthew Continetti and Michael Goldfarb and launched on February 7, 2012, as a project of the 501(c)4 organization Center for American Freedom.[2] In August 2014, it announced it was becoming a for-profit news site.[3] "The site is noted for its aggressive, ideologically driven reporting,"
and therefore they reported what Brookings was forced to self-report about its financing. which part of this reporting are you disputing? "The Brookings Institution, one of the country’s top left-leaning think tanks, has for the first time admitted to Congress that it receives millions of dollars every year from foreign governments, including Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, according to official disclosure forms obtained by theWashington Free Beacon. The disclosure of these figures comes as a result of a recently implemented federal law mandating that those who testify before Congress reveal any potential conflicts created as a result of funding by foreign entities. Brookings has come under intense scrutiny by reporters and others for not fully disclosing the large amounts of cash it receives from Middle Eastern governments."
Free Beacon is clearly (and proudly) slanted, this is disputed by no one. Brookings gets a lot of respect from both sides. And which pre fascist cronies are contributing to Free Beacon one has to wonder.
So both Free Beacon and Brookings are biased... as well as just about every other think tank and news source. The key is recognizing the bias and extracting the actual facts and factual data.
exactly... ricter's argument was ridiculous... he was just pulling the typical leftist stunt to distract from a message the left does not like by attacking the messenger and not addressing the fact or issue at all. and note... I went after the fact by discussing the bias in models and explaining that no one really knows what will happen. then ricter tried to support his message by discussing the credibility of brookings. So I responded to the credibility argument.
Senate Democrats would like to have a word with Bernie Sanders about his inability to math http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/18/senate-democrats-questions-senator-sanders.html