Is "Forbes" magazine RW? It certainly is no fan of the ACA, and I would say is venturing

[GreenPartyVoter]

a bit on the side of conspiracy-minded here. (I found this just by logging on to Yahoo to get my mail. Normally I am on an app and don't have to see the headlines, but today I am on my desktop.)

"Obamacare's Website Is Crashing Because It Doesn't Want You To Know How Costly Its Plans Are"

"Why President Obama Will Have To Delay His Health Insurance Mandate"

Actually now that I am scanning through the rest of the Yahoo headlines, I am seeing a whole lot of right-leaning type articles. Very annoying.

[russspeakeasy]

1. Never go to yahoo unless you are close to a shower.

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. Yeah, I am not impressed with their front page. I don't remember it being this bad when I signed up

for email all those years ago. But then maybe I just wasn't paying attention.

[russspeakeasy]

25. I didn't notice it until a couple of years ago.

[lostincalifornia]

2. Yes it has a right wing bias, and their owner is far right

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. Thank you. I thought so!

[geek tragedy]

3. Their health care blogger/writer worked for the Romney campaign nt

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. But apparently wasn't working with Romney during the roll-out of RomneyCare.

[geek tragedy]

13. Romneycare was mostly the Massachusetts legislature's doing, overriding Willard's veto several

times.

[GreenPartyVoter]

22. So why do people call it that if he really had nothing to do with it? Why give

him the credit when he doesn't deserve it?

[geek tragedy]

23. Because he didn't want credit for it, so people used it against him to show

what a lying hypocrite he was.

Because, of course, when it passed he wanted all kinds of credit for it.

But, then the ACA became the worst thing since slavery according to the Teahadis who determine the Republican presidential nomination.

[GreenPartyVoter]

24. Ah, thank you! That makes more sense now.

[sharp_stick]

4. The Forbes "Sites"

pages are basically just blogs, when you look at anything in the Forbes domain and the word sites comes after forbes.com you're in the blog area.

They tend to lean to the crazy and I'm not really sure why Forbes is continuing to support them. They must find money in there somewhere.

[GreenPartyVoter]

14. I would say the bottom line is the bottom line, but unless they

don't review anything posted to their "sites" then they must support these screeds.

[phleshdef]

5. It depends on who is writing the article. Rick Ungar's articles seem to be mostly pro-progressive.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/

[GreenPartyVoter]

15. Thanks! I will have to go through his writings.

[Iggo]

6. Forbes? AKA Rich Motherfucker Monthly?

Hard to tell.

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. LOL Better name for it.

[Buddaman]

8. I let my yahoo account expire.....

Get some chlorine and wash your eyes......you'll be fine.

[GreenPartyVoter]

17. LOL Well, it's my main email acct and I am daunted by the idea of starting fresh with a new one, but

I think I will be all right as long as I stick with the app. (If it starts working again for me. They changed something the other day and no mail has loaded since.)

[Stinky The Clown]

11. Yer kidding, right? Run "Steve Forbes" through your Googlemachine.

[GreenPartyVoter]

18. I assumed as a rich guy he was lean to the right, but didn't know he

supported craziness. Will have to see if he is a teabagger.

[regnaD kciN]

12. Remember Steve "Flat Tax" Forbes…?

That should answer your question.

[GreenPartyVoter]

20. Oh yes, the flat tax guy. I knew Forbes was a bastion of the rich because of "the list." Didn't

really realize how wacky his company could be, tho now that you've reminded me of the flat tax thing, it's all making more sense.

[Xolodno]

19. I read one article in Forbes while waiting in an office years ago...

....I was just an econ student at the time, but I was floored when the author got confused between the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns to Returns to Scale. He thought decreasing returns = diminishing marginal returns.....and economists were somehow being audacious and ignoring "increasing returns" as a possibility for Microsoft's success and because of that, wasn't a monopoly.

It was obvious to me, Forbes magazine was not a serious business magazine. I wonder how many people read that rag and think its valuable information and are soon parted with their investments.

edit: forgot to add "Returns to".

[GreenPartyVoter]

21. That's bad. I really despise fake journalism for that reason. It

not only sounds stupid, but it can actually hurt people.