Interesting Little Tidbit About Faux News

[Rob Henderson]

Blah blah Blah! Rob, why don't you come back and talk to us when you actually pay taxes.

And why don't you stop making such a gigantic ass out of yourself by ASSuming so much. I do pay taxes.

You claim Belgium citizens pay 55% income tax. Please supply a source.

http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,2340,en_2649_34533_1942460_1_1_1_1,00.html
Table 1.5

Scroll down to the bottom of the page.

You obviously don't follow international events or you would be aware of what is happening in Europe.

Look at the strikes in France and the problems with Greece. These are highly taxed countries overburdened with socialists programs. In other words they are going broke. Why? Because the politicians promised and delivered pie in the sky social programs that future generations have to pay for. Unfortunately, they did it several generations ago and now they can't pay the piper.

Because they didn't realize how to do it correctly. If I'm not mistaken, "several generations" ago was a bit of a dark time for Europe.

Your argument for more taxes is; "Europeans pay more". Who is the dumb one? Europeans for allowing outlandish taxes or Americans for refusing to be taxed at outlandish rates? I hope the Europeans are getting kissed while they are being screwed.

No, my argument for more taxes is compassion for others. Something that you clearly cannot comprehend.

You want to see what "progressive" social programs get you. Look at California, 95 days past due for a budget and counting. Can't balance a budget. California is in debt.

You have an actor for a governor. I'm not looking anywhere NEAR California for political models. LOLOLOL

In away, our views should be reversed. As I will soon be collecting on promises that you and your children will have to pay for. Thank you for that at least. (I hope it does not upset you that I will be kicking back on a southern California beach while you are paying my way ).

I hope you enjoy it. I'm sure you've earned it by paying for a generation before yours. I only hope that when my time comes, I won't be screwed over by some selfish conservatives who don't think I deserve my rest at the end of my life.



I suppose I was foolish for believing Chukpike could post something completely on-topic.

Agree with Chuckpike here. 55% taxes is why I don't live in Belgium. They do have excellent beer BTW. :drink: I do not care one whit about how much europeans are taxed. That is their problem to take up with their politicians. Not mine. Rob, you seem to have skipped over my question about the group that votes without learning about the issues.

My point is that you don't see Belgian citizens rioting in the streets because of higher taxes or flying planes into IRS (or their equivalents) buildings because of higher taxes. Belgians are quite content to live within their means and pay for a government that doesn't SUCK THE BIG ONE. I have said it FAR TOO MANY TIMES on this forum... You get what you pay for.

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?

BTW you may not like Foxnews, but guess what, Me, Your boss and the rest of the white middle aged males can base our votes on Foxnews info, and there is nothing you can do about it. Just like the other groups who listen only to the likes of Ariana Huffington, Barney ("I created the housing crisis") Frank, Nancy (Gimme my $45million plane") Pelosi and Al (I failed at talk radio and now I'm a senator) Franken and base their votes only on liberal views. And there is nothing I can do about it either.

Finally, we agree on something. You're right. This is the land of free choice, and we're both entitled to live whatever life we choose.

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.

A final question, Didn't MontyB provide an interview of a liberal on Foxnews?

Indeed he did. Is he your second account or something? Didn't I ask YOU? But whatever. It was just Jon Stewart anyway. Funny how after I attempted to correct myself, he didn't post a video of a liberal political figure, which is what I was after in the first place.

 

[MontyB]

Indeed he did. Is he your second account or something? Didn't I ask YOU? But whatever. It was just Jon Stewart anyway. Funny how after I attempted to correct myself, he didn't post a video of a liberal political figure, which is what I was after in the first place.

I am sorry you can't ask clear and concise questions but I guess general questions allow for wiggle room so does this meet your "political" figure requirement or did you really mean "male" political figures and videos shot after 7pm on leap years?

Political enough?

 

[Chukpike]

And why don't you stop making such a gigantic ass out of yourself by ASSuming so much. I do pay taxes.
http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,2340,en_2649_34533_1942460_1_1_1_1,00.html
Table 1.5

Scroll down to the bottom of the page.

Yeah, I am sure you pay taxes. You are going to school. So may be you work part time, so any taxes you pay now, you get back. Unless you are as bad at filing taxes as you are at reading your sources.

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%
---------------------------------´All-in´ 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:

I suppose I was foolish for believing Chukpike could post something completely on-topic.

You have an actor for a governor. I'm not looking anywhere NEAR California for political models. LOLOLOL

About the same as the White House.

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.:lol:

Here is a scary thought: guess where the last Governor of California who was an actor ended up?:-D

My point is that you don't see Belgian citizens rioting in the streets because of higher taxes or flying planes into IRS (or their equivalents) buildings because of higher taxes. Belgians are quite content to live within their means and pay for a government that doesn't SUCK THE BIG ONE. I have said it FAR TOO MANY TIMES on this forum... You get what you pay for.

Unfortunately, the Greeks and French do not think they are getting what they paid for and are rioting in the streets.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101002/wl_nm/us_france_pensions_protests
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6443GA20100506

FOX News is biased, but not blindly biased as you seem to be Rob.

 

[mmarsh]

you asked for a liberal guest not a liberal candidate.

FOX does have Liberal guests, they do not have regular liberal commentators or journalists. They used to have a right-leaning moderate play the role of the liberal "Judy" like in the Punch and Judy puppet-shows, but they refuse to have any liberal intellectuals have their own show (and its pretty obvious as to why).

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**.

 

[HokieMSG]

And why don't you
.. snip ..
in the first place.

Again Rob I ask you. Why is your anger not directed at the individuals who choose to single or no source their information?

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.

 

[Rob Henderson]

I am sorry you can't ask clear and concise questions but I guess general questions allow for wiggle room so does this meet your "political" figure requirement or did you really mean "male" political figures and videos shot after 7pm on leap years?

Political enough?

And I'm sorry you misunderstood me. But instead of just posting this video, you had to be a smart ass. Yes, this works as a political figure. Congratulations.

Again Rob I ask you. Why is your anger not directed at the individuals who choose to single or no source their information?

I DO have anger towards those who single source their information... FOX NEWS IS A SINGLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION. Are we still not comprehending this miniscule yet gigantically crucial fact?!?! As far as no sources, they aren't watching the news either way, so I have no worries about them being disillusioned by the right wing pocket media.

You are correct that you can express your opinion, no matter how delusional or misguided it may be.

Nice little dig there. Where's those weapons of mass destruction Fox News harped on about so proudly? Where's Osama Bin Laden Fox News was so sure we were going to catch? Where's the proof of Iran's intention to attack the United States with nuclear ( you might know them as "nukular") weapons? How's THAT for misguided? ROFLMAO

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.

The rules don't have any bearing on the analogy. Kinda like Chukpike's argument about income taxes don't have any bearing on Fox News being a biased news organization.

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.

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.

I will not "save" my compassion for anyone. I'm not "hiding" behind anything. Just because you think nobody deserves compassion doesn't mean I do.

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.

I'm sorry... What "facts" have I refused to acknowledge? That Fox News doesn't have liberal guests appear on its shows? No. I do acknowledge that fact. However, the fact that liberal news media organizations consistently have MORE conservative guests appear on THEIR shows has not been disputed. Only ignored, skirted around, and dismissed.

MontyB, Again, thanks. I fear you have wasted your time providing sources, it is obvious that Rob will just ignore them anyway.

Did I ignore his source? I admit that my definition of "guest" was a bit too open for interpretation, but then again, we hadn't been talking about having Glenn Beck on the Rachel Maddow show... We had been talking about PROMINENT REPUBLICAN POLITICAL FIGURES HAVING CONTRACTS WITH FOX NEWS. So I supposed I assumed MontyB would realize that (although that would require SO much reading of the thread). My apologies. I won't overestimate your comprehension skills again, Monty.

Chuckpike, you too have wasted your time providing sources as Rob will either misread them or spin them to fit his agenda.

You're correct here. Chukpike HAS wasted his time because he has not posted ON TOPIC. He has attempted numerous times to derail this thread, but the topic is not income taxes in Belgium. The topic is how Fox News is a biased news organization. So yes, any sources he has posted about how Rob was wrong about taxes in Belgium are wasted.

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.

 

[A Can of Man]

Where's those weapons of mass destruction Fox News harped on about so proudly? Where's Osama Bin Laden Fox News was so sure we were going to catch? Where's the proof of Iran's intention to attack the United States with nuclear ( you might know them as "nukular") weapons? How's THAT for misguided? ROFLMAO

Actually that's not really fair.
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.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Actually that's not really fair.
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.

Ah, but Fox News stood behind GWB till the (harshly) bitter end.

 

[MontyB]

And I'm sorry you misunderstood me. But instead of just posting this video, you had to be a smart ass.

Yeah and it is probably best that you remember I am good at being one too.

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.

 

[mmarsh]

Actually that's not really fair.
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.

I don't think thats what Rob means. I think hes referring Hannity "We found WMDs" because they found an 30 year old supply of inert chem rounds left over from the Iran-Iraq war. All the media reported this but only Hannity managed to leave out the words, "old" "inert" "leftover from Iran-Iraq" and the fact they posed absolute no threat. Instead he made it to sound like they found a flagrant violation.

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.

 

[HokieMSG]

Rob,
Do you agree that Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds? If you do there has always been the possibility that he had them. Either he bought them or he made them. Saddam was not exactly being cooperative with the inspectors either. Which put the U.S. in a difficult position. I think the russian or french governments had some involvement here (I have no proof, just my gut, so don't ask for a source).

I agree that maybe things could have been handled better. What about Dan Rather and his stories about GWB that were later disproved. I don't think I ever heard about Fox News doing something so egregious.

 

[Chukpike]

The topic being the bias of FOX NEWS, what makes for a discussion? It appears that from most all liberal remarks here, that the problem is that FOX is not left leaning like the other news services.

The reason liberals "Hate" FOX NEWS is; it does not conform to their views on how news should be slanted.

I always find it humorous to hear a "compassionate liberal intellectual" comment on how they "Hate someone who's views differ from their own".

 

[Rob Henderson]

Rob,
Do you agree that Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds? If you do there has always been the possibility that he had them. Either he bought them or he made them. Saddam was not exactly being cooperative with the inspectors either. Which put the U.S. in a difficult position. I think the russian or french governments had some involvement here (I have no proof, just my gut, so don't ask for a source).

Don't even get me started on this. This entire subject could be the topic of a college course on history and has already been beaten to death several times on this forum previously.

I agree that maybe things could have been handled better. What about Dan Rather and his stories about GWB that were later disproved. I don't think I ever heard about Fox News doing something so egregious.

That was absolutely embarrassing for Dan Rather. I laughed my ass off when I found out it was fake. But this is yet another example to support my claim that one should not rely on ONE news program for all one's information.

You see, Hokie, I truly do not hate JUST Fox News. I hate any news organization that presents false information or presents factual information in a biased manner. However, I highly doubt that Fox News has never failed to authenticate a source.

The topic being the bias of FOX NEWS, what makes for a discussion? It appears that from most all liberal remarks here, that the problem is that FOX is not left leaning like the other news services.

The reason liberals "Hate" FOX NEWS is; it does not conform to their views on how news should be slanted.

I always find it humorous to hear a "compassionate liberal intellectual" comment on how they "Hate someone who's views differ from their own".

That's not true. The reason I dislike Fox News is because they are completely Republican biased. They have no interest in the Democrats views, they have no interest in bipartisanship, they have no interest in listening to anyone else's thoughts on ANYTHING.

You say we liberals are the ones who "hate someone who's views differ from [our] own"... Yet, not only do I find myself not saying that (which is a misquote, which is misinformation... Do you watch Fox, Chuk?), but I find that I have admitted other news organization's faults AND said that I dislike those news organizations as well!

 

[Chukpike]

You say we liberals are the ones who "hate someone who's views differ from [our] own"... Yet, not only do I find myself not saying that (which is a misquote, which is misinformation... Do you watch Fox, Chuk?),

No, that is not what I said.
I said, "I always find it humorous to hear a "compassionate liberal intellectual" comment on how they "Hate someone who's views differ from their own".

Did not think liberal intellectuals had room for hate?

Liberals claim to be open minded and compassionate. So why do some use the word hate. Isn't that supposed to be what you are against, prejudices.

I know! You hate rednecks, Republicans, and prejudice people! Right on!;-)

but I find that I have admitted other news organization's faults AND said that I dislike those news organizations as well!

You might look up some of your old posts, and see if "dislike" is the word you used.:smile: In fact, your last post may be the first time I ever read where you used dislike.:lol:

In answer to your question, "Do you watch Fox, Chuk?".
No.

I don't know what this is about?
"Yet, not only do I find myself not saying that (which is a misquote, which is misinformation..."

I did not refer to you specfically and did not quote you.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Off topic. The whole damned post. Not one reference to Fox News being biased or not.


... Nice try though.

 

[Chukpike]

Off topic. The whole damned post. Not one reference to Fox News being biased or not.


... Nice try though.

I believe you asked me a question and I responded.

In answer to your question, "Do you watch Fox, Chuk?".
No.

 

[MontyB]

The topic being the bias of FOX NEWS, what makes for a discussion? It appears that from most all liberal remarks here, that the problem is that FOX is not left leaning like the other news services.

The reason liberals "Hate" FOX NEWS is; it does not conform to their views on how news should be slanted.

I always find it humorous to hear a "compassionate liberal intellectual" comment on how they "Hate someone who's views differ from their own".

I disagree, the problem I have with FOX is not that it leans left or right but that tries to direct its information in order to get its viewers to form a specific opinion and that I believe is very dangerous.

One of the reasons I used the Jon Stewart interview earlier is because I agree with his assessment of the problem...
THIS IS AN EXAMPLE AND DID NOT HAPPEN SO DON'T ASK FOR "SOURCES":
It is news to say that "Obama attended a youth rally today" but the FOX approach is "Obama attended a youth rally today... You know who else attended youth rallies... HITLER." now they are not calling Obama Hitler but they are drawing parallels.

 

[Chukpike]

I disagree, the problem I have with FOX is not that it leans left or right but that tries to direct its information in order to get its viewers to form a specific opinion and that I believe is very dangerous.

Ahh... That is what opinion pieces do, left or right.

What can be frightening is people who don't think about what they hear or read and accept it as fact.

FOX NEWS bias may not be as bad as other news sources. FOX does not hide it's bias or remain low key in slanting their OPINION pieces.

Example of more subtle bias: Rob Henderson saw a interview in Rolling Stone magazine of President George Bush, it gave extremely off the wall answers supposedly attributed to George Bush. Rob was in so much of a hurry to believe it and actually quote it, that he missed the fact it was a piece of satirical fiction.

So biased reporting is a very real and big problem that real news services try and avoid, but don't always.
The LA Times was referred to as Pravda West by the Los Angeles County Sheriff Peter Pitchess, and that was in the 1970s. And it is a left of center newspaper even today(not communist just extremely liberal). So in reading it I consider the source.

One of the reasons I used the Jon Stewart interview earlier is because I agree with his assessment of the problem...
THIS IS AN EXAMPLE AND DID NOT HAPPEN SO DON'T ASK FOR "SOURCES":
It is news to say that "Obama attended a youth rally today" but the FOX approach is "Obama attended a youth rally today... You know who else attended youth rallies... HITLER." now they are not calling Obama Hitler but they are drawing parallels.

Well it finally happened, the bane of Topics and forums every where.

HITLER is in the house, whoopee. :drunkb:

 

[MontyB]

Well it finally happened, the bane of Topics and forums every where.

HITLER is in the house, whoopee. :drunkb:

Tell me you haven't sat through a Glen Beck patriotic sob-fest where the "Nazi's" haven't made an appearance or a Hannity show where the term "liberal" hasn't been followed by a "want you to be afraid of blah blah blah" line.

Lets not try and and invoke Godwin's law in this argument as it is in this case a valid example.

CNN and MSNBC may be just as biased as FOX I wont argue that but the difference is that FOX actively try and direct your opinion through managed story manipulation.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Ahh... That is what opinion pieces do, left or right.

What can be frightening is people who don't think about what they hear or read and accept it as fact.

FOX NEWS bias may not be as bad as other news sources. FOX does not hide it's bias or remain low key in slanting their OPINION pieces.

Example of more subtle bias: Rob Henderson saw a interview in Rolling Stone magazine of President George Bush, it gave extremely off the wall answers supposedly attributed to George Bush. Rob was in so much of a hurry to believe it and actually quote it, that he missed the fact it was a piece of satirical fiction.

So now you're admitting that Fox News is no more a "news" organization than Rolling Stone magazine? Okay. Thanks. That clears a lot up. Now that I know Fox News isn't ACTUALLY news, it's okay for them to be biased.

So biased reporting is a very real and big problem that real news services try and avoid, but don't always.
The LA Times was referred to as Pravda West by the Los Angeles County Sheriff Peter Pitchess, and that was in the 1970s. And it is a left of center newspaper even today(not communist just extremely liberal). So in reading it I consider the source.

Real news services? Now, that term doesn't include Fox anymore, does it? Because just up there you compared Fox News to Rolling Stone magazine, and Rolling Stone does NOT consider itself a news source.

Well it finally happened, the bane of Topics and forums every where.

HITLER is in the house, whoopee. :drunkb:

And because it is another case of Fox News being extraordinarily biased (even outside of its "opinion" segments), you try to draw people's attention away from it.




Despite all this though, Chuk, I can still thank you for posting a more on topic than not post. BRAVO! If all your posts were that diligent in sticking to the topic at hand, we might actually get somewhere in our debates from time to time.