Yes slanted, especially since the second half of that column has absolutely nothing to do with the leading contention.

And yes, the contest is not promoting new regulation or the value of any existing regulation. It is a contest for who can best explain the federal rulemaking process and how to be involved in it. That is greatly valuable information even if you want to minimize as much as possible the amount of federal rulemaking that happens. And whether you want it or not (and federal rulemaking is a process that is as old as this country) it is completely true that it is very important (and a lot of it is stuff of which even conservatives would approve).

I say this as someone who did a 20 minute presentation back in my Government Documents class in library school on the federal rulemaking process.

It's like bitching about Schoolhouse Rock's "How a Bill Becomes a Law" as being propaganda for diminishing our freedoms.

Thank you to Alex.

Seriously, from the very first sentence, that article is a joke. I learned about fact-to-assertion ratios when I was 15 years old. Admittedly, it was an excellent teacher who taught me this. Not everyone was so lucky, it seems.

The fact that people from both sides of the spectrum link to obviously slanted drivel such as this as if it were a valid, factual reference point is the most godawful thing that's happened to the world. Aren't you embarrassed?

You should be glad that I stay away from the political threads because I'd have to post this every time I saw anyone here link to such bullsh.t masquerading as a news source. Even if I do read biased stuff I know what I'm reading and I don't pretend that it's a worthy reference point.

Stop it. All of you. :(

I assume there's a reason you posted that link connected with what you said earlier? Because having watched the first six videos on that page I'm not seeing a connection.

Not one of them even mentions government regulations let alone advocates for more. They do encourage recycling, composting and reduction of waste which I can see would be the first step fascist socialism.

Teabaggers. Again, I guess it's completely OK to use such terms for groups of people you don't like. I realize that comment was from 4/14, but I hadn't read it until now.

Yeah. Stop doing that.

I believe members of the Fox media used the term teabaggers to describe them first.

I'll cop to that being a flimsy excuse for the continued use of the term by people who, unlike Fox's initial use which was out of ignorance, use it because of the derogatory meaning. I've mostly avoided using it myself, having only used it a couple times at the height of the humor value of the unintended use by those sympathetic with the movement. Once the humor value wore off, I recognized that continued use was purely derogatory.

When my 16 year old was 3, she was singing the "where is thumbkin" song or whatever it's called, where the singer holds their hands behind their back and when calling the fingers, the fingers come out and talk to each other (how are you today sor, very fine and thank you, run and hide, run and hide, blah, blah, blah). When she got to "middle man", it was pretty funny, really. Something tells me, though, that if she was showing me the middle finger as a 16 year old it might have a slightly different meaning associated and i don't think I'd be laughing.

All that said, to differentiate from what CP was frustrated by, I doubt you'll find anyone linking to a story that uses the term "teabagger" and claiming ignorance to the story's bias. CP wasn't reacting to using biases articles or biased language as part of a discussion. It was to the denial of the bias.

Sorry, that was the wrong link.

http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/videocontest/