Someone else unnamed made the image with the blonde Fox News staff. I added the explanatory title.
I detect an anti-Christian bias on Alternet. I think they enjoy publishing articles critical of Christianity. (BTW, I am an atheist.)
For example, the following article has a deceptive title. The title suggests that Christians have higher rates of porn addiction than non-Christians. But the body of the article says otherwise.
The article 9 Truly Evil Things Right-Wing Christians Do says “The Christian persecution complex is absurd.” Calling Christians “truly evil” and then saying they have a persecution complex is kinda ironic, don’t you think? (The author of the article says she did not choose the title.)
I’ve seen other articles on Alternet critical of Christians.
Mind you, I agree that there are many terrible things that conservative Christians have done (The article 9 Truly Evil Things Right-Wing Christians Do has a good summary.) But one shouldn’t judge all Christians by the actions and views of the conservative sects. And one shouldn’t overstate the case.
Someone should do a more thorough analysis of Alternet’s articles. I notice they’re good at coming up with catchy titles about interesting topics.
I detect an anti-Christian bias on Alternet. I think they enjoy publishing articles critical of Christianity. (BTW, I am an atheist who was raised mildly Jewish.) For example, the following article has a deceptive title. The title suggests that Christians have higher rates of porn addiction than non-Christians. But the body of the article says otherwise.
For one of your articles, too, they chose a title that was more anti-Christian than what you wrote.
Someone should research this bias …..<h1 class=”node-title” datatype=”” property=”dc:title”>Porn Addiction in the Christian Community: Why Are Rates so High?</h1>Porn Addiction in the Christian Community: Why Are Rates so High?</h1>Porn Addiction in the Christian Community: Why Are Rates so High?http://www.alternet.org/belief/9-truly-evil-things-right-wing-christians-do
Wall Street and big business Republicans are already signaling they’d prefer a Democratic establishment candidate over a Republican populist.
Dozens of major GOP donors, Wall Street Republicans, and corporate lobbyists have told Politico that if Jeb Bush decides against running and Chris Christie doesn’t recover politically, they’ll support Hillary Clinton. “The darkest secret in the big money world of the Republican coastal elite is that the most palatable alternative to a nominee such as Senator Ted Cruz of Texas or Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky would be Clinton,” concludes Politico.
I bet the Pentagon would prefer Hillary too.
[The Bellevue Reporter published this in an abbreviated form as a letter-to-the-editor in their print edition today, including the part about Litzow and Hill's funding by the Koch brothers. So far the letter isn't appearing on their website.]
According to letsfreecongress.com, in the 2012 US House elections, 95% of the candidates that outspent their opponents won, and 1% of the donors contributed 68% of the campaign funding.
Nevertheless, election spending has a limited ability to flip elections. According to Americans for Campaign Reform, once a threshold of spending is exceeded, additional campaign spending yields little or no returns.
But campaign spending on close races certainly can flip elections, as it did in 2010, when spending by Charles and David Koch’s Americans for Prosperity unseated Democrats Eric Oemig and Randy Gordon from the Washington State Senate in the 41st and 45th LD, replacing them with Republicans Steve Litzow and Andy Hill. (The State Republican Party was later fined for violating election reporting requirements in that election. See also How the Koch Brothers worked to defeat Democrats in Washington State.)
On the left, spending by California billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer helped elect Democrat Terry McAuliffe as Governor of Virginia and helped sway California voters on legislative elections and ballot initiatives.
If money is speech, then lawmakers will tend to serve the interests of the rich. We need to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that treats money as speech and we need public financing of campaigns so that wealthy donors can’t buy elections.
From USA Today’s story Challenger concedes GOP primary to controversial rep
A transcript of DesJarlais’ 2001 divorce showed that he and his then-wife, Susan, made a mutual decision to have two abortions. Still another woman has charged that DesJarlais encouraged her to get an abortion as well.
DesJarlais, a doctor whose congressional seat was a Democratic stronghold before he won it using tea party themes four years ago, also acknowledged in the court case he had sex with at least two patients and said he had prescribed painkillers for at least one of them.
Alas, DesJarlais won the primary.