Scientific American Article

[Lessifer]

I disagree. I said 'nearly' and there are clear exceptions. And I said 'faction' not 'small faction' :- ) There can be little objection to the fact that the one party believes (has as part of their platform) that gov't is the solution to almost any problem, and that the other party believes (also in their platform) more in privatization of many gov't functions.

But, to the topic you brought up - liberal billionaires control a supermajority of the media.

The other party also believes(and has in their platform) that God and family based on "natural marriage" is a solution to many of America's problems.

I assumed the small was implied, which is why I put it in parentheses as my word, faction to me implies not the majority.

Liberals do own more of the media, but the conservative outlets are adept at getting their message across as well. Don't trust either of them.

 

[Kent C]

Liberals do own more of the media, but the conservative outlets are adept at getting their message across as well. Don't trust either of them.

Yeah, owning and effective isn't the same. :- ) The other stuff might be good in some outside forum but not here. Already too much of an diversion from the topic at hand - a terrible, as Lara said, "see how fair I'm being' article that is negative for ecigs. lol.

And Scientific America is owned by one of your 'billionaires' - Stefan von Holtzbrinck - although a German one

wiki
Lausitzer Rundschau was first published on 20 May 1946.

The paper was owned by the Socialist Unity Party before German reunification. Following the unification the owner of the daily became Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group.

Chairman of the group is now Stefan von Holtzbrinck