The IRS is attempting to expand it's powers globally.

[LMNO]

You mean, Steve "the Flat Tax is a great idea" Forbes?

[Doktor Howl]

You mean, Steve "the Flat Tax is a great idea" Forbes?

That's like a mating call for Libertarians, you know.

[East Coast Hustle]

you don't consider Forbes or FoxBusiness to be valid sources for business news?   

you do?

basing where you get your business news on partisan politics, or because their political reporting is clearly biased is pretty short sided, IMO.

Fox business I can take or leave.  They're on par with CNNMoney for quality.

But Forbes?  as in Steven Forbes?  yeah, I think I'll trust his publication as one of several sources for news about business and money. 

Wait, are you saying that you think there's some sort of separation between business and politics?

does not do my reaction any justice.

[Disco Pickle]

Clearly not.

But try finding a news organization without a political slant.

If you want to get information about Discordianism, you don't go to a Christian church.

If you want to get information about what is succeeding in business, you listen to successful business people.

Disagree with his politics all you like, he's still successful and so is his publication.

Why do I keep having to explain this to clearly intelligent people?

[Freeky]

Clearly not.

But try finding a news organization without a political slant.

If you want to get information about Discordianism, you don't go to a Christian church.

If you want to get information about what is succeeding in business, you listen to successful business people.

Disagree with his politics all you like, he's still successful and so is his publication.

Why do I keep having to explain this to clearly intelligent people?

Because you posted a very suspect blog post, with which you seem to agree, and aren't interested in admitting that its total bullshit.

[Doktor Howl]

If you want to get information about what is succeeding in business, you listen to successful business people.

Because it's in their interests to educate us all in how things really work.   

[Freeky]

If you want to get information about what is succeeding in business, you listen to successful business people.

Because it's in their interests to educate us all in how things really work.   

Also this. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Clearly not.

But try finding a news organization without a political slant.

If you want to get information about Discordianism, you don't go to a Christian church.

If you want to get information about what is succeeding in business, you listen to successful business people.

Disagree with his politics all you like, he's still successful and so is his publication.

Why do I keep having to explain this to clearly intelligent people?

TIME TO DIG IN AND SCREETCH!

[Doktor Howl]

Fact is, DP, none of these fuckos are interested in you getting the straight poop...ESPECIALLY guys like Forbes, who'd like to see you tugging on your forelock.

Rant forthcoming.

[Disco Pickle]

Clearly not.

But try finding a news organization without a political slant.

If you want to get information about Discordianism, you don't go to a Christian church.

If you want to get information about what is succeeding in business, you listen to successful business people.

Disagree with his politics all you like, he's still successful and so is his publication.

Why do I keep having to explain this to clearly intelligent people?

Because you posted a very suspect blog post, with which you seem to agree, and aren't interested in admitting that its total bullshit.

It's opinionated and biased, clearly.  And what Roger points out looks true enough.

Doesn't make the part I clearly was discussing in the OP less true, or the entire thing total bullshit.

[Doktor Howl]

Clearly not.

But try finding a news organization without a political slant.

If you want to get information about Discordianism, you don't go to a Christian church.

If you want to get information about what is succeeding in business, you listen to successful business people.

Disagree with his politics all you like, he's still successful and so is his publication.

Why do I keep having to explain this to clearly intelligent people?

Because you posted a very suspect blog post, with which you seem to agree, and aren't interested in admitting that its total bullshit.

It's opinionated and biased, clearly.  And what Roger points out looks true enough.

Doesn't make the part I clearly was discussing in the OP less true, or the entire thing total bullshit.

You're a smart guy.  Why do you keep veering back to believing in fairy tales like the "free market", etc?  At what point did you expect the government to be reasonable, and at what point did you expect a libertarian/anarchist blog to be honest about the level of that unreasonable behavior?

Both sides lie.  If you choose one shit sandwich over the other, you're still eating poop for lunch.

[Disco Pickle]

Fact is, DP, none of these fuckos are interested in you getting the straight poop...ESPECIALLY guys like Forbes, who'd like to see you tugging on your forelock.

Rant forthcoming.

Yeah, it would clearly remain in print if the information they gave proved to be inaccurate on a consistent basis.  

I believe that's the tabloid business model you're confusing a business publication with.

[Freeky]

How about you stop with the nose in the air attitude and requote just the relevent bits?  I admit I have a short attention span.  I read about two or three paragraphs and what you said, and I honestly can't see what you're talking about that's any different or any less bullshit.  


Also, ECONOMINCS AND BUSINESS PUBLICATIONS ARE LIKE THE BIBLE TO SOME PEOPLE.  You, for instance.  Because how could it be wrong?  Of course it isn't wrong.  Its everyone else who is wrong.

[Doktor Howl]

Yeah, it would clearly remain in print if the information they gave proved to be inaccurate on a consistent basis.  

I believe that's the tabloid business model you're confusing a business publication with.

I fail to see any practical difference.

Please link me to the Forbes headline/cover story warning about the housing bubble and bank fuckery, any time between 1995 and 2005.

You can sell anyone ANYTHING, if you're the one telling them what's true.

[Disco Pickle]

How about you stop with the nose in the air attitude and requote just the relevent bits?  I admit I have a short attention span.  I read about two or three paragraphs and what you said, and I honestly can't see what you're talking about that's any different or any less bullshit.  


Also, ECONOMINCS AND BUSINESS PUBLICATIONS ARE LIKE THE BIBLE TO SOME PEOPLE.  You, for instance.  Because how could it be wrong?  Of course it isn't wrong.  Its everyone else who is wrong.

eh, didn't mean to come across as a snob.  I highlighted the part that was most relevant, and provided a follow up link when Roger asked for a source on something I said.

Yeah, it would clearly remain in print if the information they gave proved to be inaccurate on a consistent basis.  

I believe that's the tabloid business model you're confusing a business publication with.

I fail to see any practical difference.

Please link me to the Forbes headline/cover story warning about the housing bubble and bank fuckery, any time between 1995 and 2005.

You can sell anyone ANYTHING, if you're the one telling them what's true.

delivered, from 2001.

http://www.forbes.com/2001/09/03/076.html

Oh, and I'm sure you'll laugh to find out that Ron Paul was making speeches before congress warning about it in 2002.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-26/ron-paul-on-the-housing-bubble-july-2002/


but he's just a crazy old fucker who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.  right?