![]() | About Interesting Little Tidbit About Faux News Page 7 |
![]() |
| | #61 | |||||||||
| | Quote:
Quote:
Table 1.5 Scroll down to the bottom of the page. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I suppose I was foolish for believing Chukpike could post something completely on-topic. Quote:
As per your point about voters who do not educate themselves... You've said it yourself, I can't do anything about what they choose to do... But I CAN express my opinion on it. I think voters who don't educate themselves at all are just as stupid as voters who watch only one news source thinking it will give them the proper scope of an issue. Where would we be in life if every person watched NASCAR to learn how to drive? They're great drivers, aren't they? So, theoretically, all one would need to do is drive like Tony Stewart or Dale Earnhardt, Jr. to learn how to drive well. Right? WRONG. Just because that's ONE way to drive doesn't mean that is necessarily the correct way to drive 100% of the time. Capiche? Quote:
HOWEVER, this does NOT mean that I cannot voice my opinion about it. The whole "I can do whatever I want and there's nuttin' you can do about it" argument is, quite frankly, a moot point. Quote:
| |||||||||
![]() | |
| |
| | #62 | ||||
| | Quote:
We are more often treacherous through weakness than through calculation. ~Francois De La Rochefoucauld | ||||
| | #63 | ||||
| | Quote:
Thought something was rotten in Denmark I mean Belgium. From Rob's table: Belgium % of average wage 67% 100% 133% 167% AW=39723--------------------Central gvt 19.2% 25.6% 29.5% 32.0% -----------------------------------Sub-central _1.4% _1.9% _2.2% _2.4% ------------------------------------Combined 20.7% 27.5% 31.7% 34.4% -----------------------------Employee SSC 13.7% 14.0% 14.0% 14.1% ---------------------------------ŽAll-inŽ 34.4% 41.5% 45.7% 48.5% --------------------------------Employer SSC 28.4% 30.4% 30.9% 30.4% -------------------------------Total tax wedge 48.9% 55.2% 58.5% 60.5% The 'All-in' row equates to the percentage of wages paid as personal income tax. (Even includes what they pay into retirement which technically isn't a tax). The higher % figure Rob used (55.2%) includes employer contributions. If you include employer contribution made in the US our tax percentage would be higher also. The combined figure is the true TAX PAID. You can go to Rob's source, and go to the bottom of table 1.5 and get a full explanation of the table. Rob just chooses to ignore the facts when they don't suit him. Just like he can wander all over without staying on topic, unless someone points out his falsehoods and then he wants to scream: Quote:
Quote:
Rob you better look at California, as it is not even as far left as you would like. You know, where your girlfriend comes from Nancy Pelosi. Here is a scary thought: guess where the last Governor of California who was an actor ended up? Quote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101002/...sions_protests http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6443GA20100506 FOX News is biased, but not blindly biased as you seem to be Rob. Last edited by Chukpike; October 7th, 2010 at 00:15.. | ||||
| | #64 | |
| | Quote:
There are two points I'd make on this... 1. Al Franken did a study in his book "LIES and the Liars who tell them" that conservative guests on FOX news that conservative guests appear vastly more often than liberals ones do. I don't remember exactly the figure because I read it years ago, but Franken sited but it was something like 70%-30% within a several month period. 2. The second point, is when Liberals do appear on FOX it is hardly on a fair neutral platform where they are entitled to openly express their views freely. If it were like BBCs "HARDTALK" were ALL guests from all sides of the spectrum are ruthlessly grilled, thats one thing. But there is a difference between hard-hitting questions and "ambush journalism". Especially when FOX interviews the otherside the questions they ask are the softest of softball questions. The only thing I don't understand is why Liberals even go on FOX anymore. Its not like they are going to convince most of FOXs narrow-minded listeners that they are right. Fox's audience tends to be the most narrow-minded and ignorant segments in US society. Watching FOX is like watching wrestling, its all staged and you can already guess the result without having to actually watch. The difference is you actually learn more watching wrestling. I simply don't understand why the DNC simply doesn't send a memo telling party members not to appear on that network, I don't care how many people watch that show. If I were running for office on a Democratic ticket and FOX asked for an interview I'd tell them to kiss my a**. "My center is giving way, my right is in retreat situation excellent. I shall attack." -Foch I am from NYC. I fly a French flag because I work in Paris. | |
| | #65 | |
| | Quote:
You are correct that you can express your opinion, no matter how delusional or misguided it may be. Your NASCAR analogy doesn't hold water. Drivers are required to follow certain rules, theses are learned during the permit phase. NASCAR drivers also follow rules but they are a completely different set. Bottom line is that you hide behind the compassion argument while Chuckpike, MontyB (Not my second account) and I are trying to explain to you that your ire is misguided. Save your comassion for the truly deserving not the few leeches. True Fox News is conservative, but I think your hatred for all things conservative has blinded you to numerous facts (backed by sources) and you refuse to acknowledge or change your tune. Go back to your ivory tower and pout. MontyB, Again, thanks. I fear you have wasted your time providing sources, it is obvious that Rob will just ignore them anyway. Chuckpike, you too have wasted your time providing sources as Rob will either misread them or spin them to fit his agenda. mmarsh, I think the liberal guests who appear on Foxnews are following the "There is no such thing as bad publicity." mantra. You are correct that the BBC is a much better example of minimally biased reporting. I watched a lot of BBC when I was in Iraq and it was rather refreshing. Gunner. Sabot. Sniper. Is not an appropriate use of ammunition. | |
| | #66 | |||||||||||
| | Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Again, my overall point remains the same... If everyone watched one specific thing to glean all their information, they will not get the whole picture. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
BTW, Chukpike, if you would like, we could make a separate thread about income taxes around the world. I'd LOVE to show you how the United States pays the lowest taxes in the developed world. | |||||||||||
| | #67 | |
| | Quote:
FOX was not the only press network that was going on about the certainty of WMDs in Iraq. I still remember the runup rather well. The American media was by in large behind the invasion in the beginning. Because they, like the many of us, believed that the US government was telling the truth. | |
| | #68 | |
| | Quote:
| |
| | #69 | |
| | Quote:
To avoid this in future perhaps thinking about the question before asking it would be a good policy? For the record I think Fox is probably the most disingenuous "News" organisation on the planet and only a few steps up from a tabloid but I also think they have a lot of company. Last edited by MontyB; October 7th, 2010 at 23:22.. | |
| | #70 | |
| | Quote:
It took FOX a very long time to admit that in fact their were no WMDs in Iraq, much longer than the other media outlets. They just didn't want to stop beating that dead horse... HokieMsg Thats possible, but I still don't understand it. Since they know what they say is going to be warped, twisted into a pretzel, and then used against them as a weapon why bother? For example, a few years ago, Bill Clinton went on FOX against all advice not to, and sure enough it was an ambush attack where the FOX interviewer portrayed him as being 100% responsible for 9-11. Clinton got visibly angry and upset which was exactly the reply FOX had wanted. I couldn't help a "I told you so" thought. | |
![]() |