Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

WSJ "Obama speech most dishonest in decades"Follow

#102 Apr 15 2011 at 10:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
Obviously you don't know what accredited means.

Are you just grabbing random words from your calendar or what?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#103 Apr 15 2011 at 7:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And have you considered that the same dollar left in the hands of the person who originally earned it, might just be an even better investment than both of them?
Yes. For the most part, it gets saved rather than spent.


Saved where? You understand that's a false dilemma, right? Money "saved" by the rich isn't put under a mattress. It's invested in some way. And the things they invest that money into "spend" it on things related to the investment itself. The difference isn't about spending versus saving, but investment versus consumption (or even supply side versus demand side). It's quite arguable that the money we tax from "the rich" would result in greater job and economic growth over time if not taxed. I'm not going to detail that argument right now, but it's certainly unfair to just label it "savings" and pretend that by taxing it, the government is putting otherwise idle money to work.

bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The fact that everyone on the right says it's biased and everyone on the left says it's not should be a big hint that it's biased. Think about it.
Apply the same logic to Fox News, but swap the political ideology.


Fox News doesn't receive taxpayer dollars to pay for their programming, nor do their affiliates receive funding to carry that programming. So, since you're so capable of seeing things in both directions, I assume you agree with me that NPR should not be funded either, right?

Quote:
You don't need to take opinion polls of fox to prove it's biased though, that can be done objectively by evaluating their content and by grading the amount of misinformation espoused by viewers of the network relative to those who do not. Spoiler alert: that was already done.


Not really interested in the whole "Is Fox News biased" bit, since I've already won this round. But wouldn't a better way be to examine the political demographics of their viewers? We can assume that the more biased a media source is, the more skewed its viewers should be, right? And yet, what the statistics clearly show is that there is a far more balanced set of viewers for Fox than for any other cable news network. Strange, isn't it? Again, I don't need to prove this to you to win this one, but it's interesting that you're wrong all the way around on this one.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#104 Apr 16 2011 at 11:44 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
Fox News doesn't receive taxpayer dollars to pay for their programming, nor do their affiliates receive funding to carry that programming. So, since you're so capable of seeing things in both directions, I assume you agree with me that NPR should not be funded either, right?
Well, they did get a federal tax rebate. More than NPR got in federal funding. I think NPR should be a public service, I'm apathetic about federal funding, mainly because of how relatively small it is.

gbaji wrote:
Not really interested in the whole "Is Fox News biased" bit, since I've already won this round.
Ha, try not to pat yourself on the back too hard, don't want to hurt yourself.

gbaji wrote:
But wouldn't a better way be to examine the political demographics of their viewers? We can assume that the more biased a media source is, the more skewed its viewers should be, right? And yet, what the statistics clearly show is that there is a far more balanced set of viewers for Fox than for any other cable news network. Strange, isn't it? Again, I don't need to prove this to you to win this one, but it's interesting that you're wrong all the way around on this one.
Haha. No, the more biased the media source, the more MISINFORMED the viewers are. Doesn't matter the makeup of the viewers, only if what they're being told is factual or not. If there was a news source that had a vastly conservative audience but they were consistently less misinformed than any other news source, THAT would be the most unbiased news organization. You can't have a bias towards facts.

On that case though, Fox loses terribly. Their viewers are far more misinformed on news topics than regular viewers of any other network. October 2003 study from the University of Maryland Program on International Policy Attitudes shows that 80% of regular Fox News viewers had one or more misinformed views, whereas only 23% of regular viewers/listeners of PBS-NPR had one or more misinformed views. Looks to me like Fox News is a plague on reality and PBS/NPR is the most reliable news source to me, even doing a better job of accurately informing the public than the print media, which has been a traditional herald of investigative journalism.

Go ahead gbaji, polish that ****.



Edited, Apr 16th 2011 1:00pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#105 Apr 16 2011 at 11:45 AM Rating: Good
******
43,937 posts
gbaji wrote:
We can assume that the more biased a media source is, the more skewed its viewers should be, right?
But, you just said you weren't interested in the Fox News is biased topic ...
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#106 Apr 16 2011 at 3:42 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's quite arguable that the money we tax from "the rich" would result in greater job and economic growth over time if not taxed.


Arguable =/= truth

Edited, Apr 16th 2011 5:42pm by Ailitardif
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#107 Apr 16 2011 at 4:42 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,471 posts
Quote:
It's quite arguable that the money we tax from "the rich" would result in greater job and economic growth over time if not taxed.


Ya in countries outside of America, like China, Mexico, Brazil, Africa, Middle East. Places that are actually worth investing in right now.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#108 Apr 16 2011 at 5:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,699 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
It's quite arguable that the money we tax from "the rich" would result in greater job and economic growth over time if not taxed.


Ya in countries outside of America, like China, Mexico, Brazil, Africa, Middle East. Places that are actually worth investing in right now.
Ridiculous. NOW is the time to buy things up in America. Real Estate is still low, businesses are in distress and everyone down there is ripe for the picking because the banks are still tighter than gbaji's ***.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#109 Apr 16 2011 at 6:43 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,471 posts
While it may be time to buy up current properties and markets in the US (like many Canadian banks are doing such as TD, CIBC, RBC, BMO) it is frivolous to invest in the United States as far as growth is concerned. The market is still highly unstable, an the economy is growing very slowly. It would make more sense to invest in Canada then the US even though it is more expensive to do so. As our economy is growing.

Do not confuse buying up weak business with investing.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#110 Apr 16 2011 at 6:54 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,581 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Obviously you don't know what accredited means.

You should go tell him after you look it up yourself.
#111 Apr 16 2011 at 7:20 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,699 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
While it may be time to buy up current properties and markets in the US (like many Canadian banks are doing such as TD, CIBC, RBC, BMO) it is frivolous to invest in the United States as far as growth is concerned. The market is still highly unstable, an the economy is growing very slowly. It would make more sense to invest in Canada then the US even though it is more expensive to do so. As our economy is growing.

Do not confuse buying up weak business with investing.
Given the strength of the Canadian dollar, now is a bad time to invest in Canada with the US being an alternative. What would I know though? I only do things like this.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#112 Apr 17 2011 at 12:55 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,471 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
While it may be time to buy up current properties and markets in the US (like many Canadian banks are doing such as TD, CIBC, RBC, BMO) it is frivolous to invest in the United States as far as growth is concerned. The market is still highly unstable, an the economy is growing very slowly. It would make more sense to invest in Canada then the US even though it is more expensive to do so. As our economy is growing.

Do not confuse buying up weak business with investing.
Given the strength of the Canadian dollar, now is a bad time to invest in Canada with the US being an alternative. What would I know though? I only do things like this.


And why would you do that....to make more money personally (or for your company.) It is not investment in America, it is for personal gains. Which was my point. You aren't talking about building a new power station or investing in more economical means of travel etc, you are talking about buying a (currently) ****** store and giving it a new sign, and banking on the economy righting itself and your store turning a profit. Where as taxes that are being used in emerging programs, such as green energy programs are a direct investment into the work force.

Rich people don't invest if there is no money to be made, they don't give a **** about the 1000 jobs they kill when they move a plant from say Michigan to Mexico, they only care about the bottom line, and if that bottom line is more money elsewhere be it cheaper running costs, cheaper labor costs, lax environmental cost (ie. waste removal), lax building codes, etc etc etc then that is what they will vote to do.

There is no reason to build a new plant in Michigan, or the like because it costs more money than it produces. People that invest largely in companies such as Ford for example, want money, and are typically on the board. They make decisions to make money on their investments. Fact of the matter is they make more money by building the vehicles in Mexico and shipping them to the US. They used to make more money doing the same in Canada but that is also changing significantly over the last 10 years. My town has lost 2 production plants for big trucks to mexico, and is about to lose a Ford production plant because the financial returns are not there.

Rich people do not invest to boost the economy, they invest to make money.

(on a completely unrelated topic, I just followed a link to a particularly amusing thread, and understand your 10K title, SOUL BALLS!)
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#113 Apr 17 2011 at 4:22 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,699 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Rich people do not invest to boost the economy, they invest to make money.
Improving the economy is an added benefit.


Quote:
(on a completely unrelated topic, I just followed a link to a particularly amusing thread, and understand your 10K title, SOUL BALLS!)
I somehow caused one epic meltdown with a few mostly innocent lines.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#114 Apr 17 2011 at 7:27 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,471 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Rich people do not invest to boost the economy, they invest to make money.
Improving the economy is an added benefit.


But it doesn't directlt do anything for anyone. Taxing the richest right now in America allows the government in addition to the points I made earlier to increase funding for much needed social programs right now. They can cut taxes on lower income people, they can provide assistance to those who are actively seeking employment etc. It allows the government to give money to people and indirectly infuse it into the economy. The majority of the US is having a hard time right now. The top earners are still sitting pretty. But the top earners aren't the ones who go see a movie when they can, or spend money on non-essentials in a large manner. The best way to get the economy rolling is to increase the spending of the American people. Through this companies are making money so they hire a few more people to keep up with increased customers, they open a new store to allow for more sales, creating more jobs, which creates more spending and so on and so forth.

Investing in weak companies, in a weak economy does not fix the issue. People aren't spending money, because they don't have money.


Quote:
Quote:
(on a completely unrelated topic, I just followed a link to a particularly amusing thread, and understand your 10K title, SOUL BALLS!)
I somehow caused one epic meltdown with a few mostly innocent lines.


Ya from what I read it seemed pretty epic. Kudos to you for that one, definitely had me chuckling at 2AM last night.


Edited, Apr 17th 2011 9:27am by rdmcandie

Edited, Apr 17th 2011 9:29am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#115 Apr 17 2011 at 8:00 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,699 posts
I was agreeing with that statement, twit. People with money invest to improve their wealth, not to improve the economy, however it has the added side effect of growing the economy anyway. The US doesn't need to increase taxes on the wealthy by the way, it just needs to close tax loopholes.

Edited, Apr 17th 2011 11:01am by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#116 Apr 17 2011 at 12:07 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,957 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
The US doesn't need to increase taxes on the wealthy by the way, it just needs to close tax loopholes.


Judging by the reaction to the last bill trying to close loopholes, the wealthy view those two options as one in the same.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#117 Apr 17 2011 at 12:47 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,699 posts
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
The US doesn't need to increase taxes on the wealthy by the way, it just needs to close tax loopholes.


Judging by the reaction to the last bill trying to close loopholes, the wealthy view those two options as one in the same.
Except there are those among the wealthy not using the loopholes, so why nail them when tax rates aren't the issue?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#118 Apr 17 2011 at 1:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
God forbid we consider raising taxes when trying to fix a massive deficit instead of just slash-and-burn tactics against programs we don't like politically...
Political Wire wrote:
The Orange County Register notes that statistics "consistently show that federal taxes are at a historic low."

"For the past two years, a family of four earning the median income has paid less in federal income taxes than at any time since at least 1955, according to the Tax Policy Center. All federal, state and local taxes combined are a lower percentage of per-capita income than at any time since the 1960s, according to the Tax Foundation. The highest income-tax bracket is its lowest since 1992. At 35 percent, it's well below the 50 percent mark of much of the 1980s and the 70 percent bracket of the 1970s."
...I mean, if we raised any taxes (directly or indirectly), it would be the worst, most socialist thing to EVER happen in America!!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#119 Apr 17 2011 at 1:54 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
It's quite arguable that the money we tax from "the rich" would result in greater job and economic growth over time if not taxed.


In this day and age, it's really not. Countries with greater social spending and higher wealthy taxation rates have far better hard outcomes than the U.S.. And we've seen in our own country that tax breaks for the rich have not trickled down-- they've only widened the income gap, which is behaviorally what you would expect. Money we don't tax from the rich sits in pockets of wealth that move more slowly and stifle commerce. The more equitable wealth is, the faster money moves and the more business for all to be had.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#120varusword75, Posted: Apr 18 2011 at 10:38 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#121 Apr 18 2011 at 10:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
Quote:
I mean, if we raised any taxes (directly or indirectly), it would be the worst
What it would do is continue to foster an anti-business pro-communist atmosphere. But you already knew that.

Reagan was an anti-business Communist? Learn something new every day.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#122 Apr 18 2011 at 11:13 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Jophiel wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Quote:
I mean, if we raised any taxes (directly or indirectly), it would be the worst
What it would do is continue to foster an anti-business pro-communist atmosphere. But you already knew that.

Reagan was an anti-business Communist? Learn something new every day.


Joph, up until now I thought you were smart. It is only communist if it comes from a democrat, otherwise it is patriotism.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#123 Apr 18 2011 at 11:16 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
599 posts
Every time someone mentions Reagan it reminds me of this Onion article.

Edited, Apr 18th 2011 1:18pm by Siesen
#124 Apr 18 2011 at 11:32 AM Rating: Good
******
43,937 posts
Every time someone mentions Reagan it reminds me of this Lewis Black joke.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#125 Apr 18 2011 at 11:59 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Every time someone mentions Reagan it reminds me of this Family Guy clip.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#126 Apr 18 2011 at 12:03 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Every time someone mentions reagan, it makes me think of the last three posts in this thread.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#127 Apr 18 2011 at 12:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
In related news, S&P changed the rating on US debt from "stable" to "negative", causing a (at this time) 240pt drop in the stock market.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#128varusword75, Posted: Apr 18 2011 at 12:46 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#129 Apr 18 2011 at 12:52 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Jophed,

Quote:
In related news, S&P changed the rating on US debt from "stable" to "negative", causing a (at this time) 240pt drop in the stock market.


Business knows Democrats hate it even if good little kool-aid drinkers like you don't.
Nowhere was a statement that he didn't think it was bad news or that it was even good news. What are you implying, though? The S&P did it solely to spite Democrats, or that they did it knowing that it'd mean bad news for the stock market?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#130 Apr 18 2011 at 1:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Standard & Poor's did it because they're skeptical of a deficit reducation agreement coming out of Congress that passes both chambers and gets a presidential signature. It's not really a Democrat thing or a Republican thing but rather a "general tone in Washington" type thing.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#131varusword75, Posted: Apr 18 2011 at 3:53 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) bsphil,
#132 Apr 18 2011 at 4:06 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
varusword75 wrote:
bsphil,

Quote:
What are you implying, though? The S&P did it solely to spite Democrats, or that they did it knowing that it'd mean bad news for the stock market?


Democrats are anti-business and the market knows and is reflecting this.
S&P's own reasoning has nothing to do with this at all. Go ahead, claim you understand the S&P better than the S&P understands themselves, that'll sound really reasonable!

Don't you ever get sick of spinning so much? I mean nauseous, specifically.



Edited, Apr 18th 2011 5:07pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#133 Apr 18 2011 at 4:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
Democrats are anti-business and the market knows and is reflecting this.

Funny that they waited until the GOP held the House to change the rating, huh?

Hrm. Maybe they figure the GOP is going to fuck up the economy. They didn't change it back when Democrats held both chambers :)
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#134 Apr 18 2011 at 4:43 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
The US doesn't need to increase taxes on the wealthy by the way, it just needs to close tax loopholes.


Judging by the reaction to the last bill trying to close loopholes, the wealthy view those two options as one in the same.
Except there are those among the wealthy not using the loopholes, so why nail them when tax rates aren't the issue?


Those among the wealthy who don't use the loopholes rarely object to legislative attempts to close them. It's a safe assumption that anyone crying tears over legislation to close tax loopholes is either a user of those loopholes or a parrot.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#135 Apr 18 2011 at 4:45 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,699 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
The US doesn't need to increase taxes on the wealthy by the way, it just needs to close tax loopholes.


Judging by the reaction to the last bill trying to close loopholes, the wealthy view those two options as one in the same.
Except there are those among the wealthy not using the loopholes, so why nail them when tax rates aren't the issue?


Those among the wealthy who don't use the loopholes rarely object to legislative attempts to close them. It's a safe assumption that anyone crying tears over legislation to close tax loopholes is either a user of those loopholes or a parrot.
Agreed. So, since the same people are going to cry either way, why ***** those over who aren't, by raising their taxes, when the others will just use loopholes to bypass it again?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#136 Apr 18 2011 at 5:18 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
varusword75 wrote:


What it would do is continue to foster an anti-business pro-communist atmosphere. But you already knew that.


I won't call you a **** if you won't call me a Commie. Let's agree that 1930s totalitarian doctrines don't have to be our only options here.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#137 Apr 18 2011 at 5:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
Let's agree that 1930s totalitarian doctrines don't have to be our only options here.

So no one is going to call me a royalist? :(
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#138 Apr 18 2011 at 5:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Fox News doesn't receive taxpayer dollars to pay for their programming, nor do their affiliates receive funding to carry that programming. So, since you're so capable of seeing things in both directions, I assume you agree with me that NPR should not be funded either, right?
Well, they did get a federal tax rebate. More than NPR got in federal funding. I think NPR should be a public service, I'm apathetic about federal funding, mainly because of how relatively small it is.


Huh? There's a massive difference between getting some of the tax money you paid back from the government and actually having a portion of your operation subsidized by the government. Fox News didn't cost the taxpayers anything. On the contrary, as a for profit business, it generated tax revenue. Please tell me you didn't think this was a serious response?

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
But wouldn't a better way be to examine the political demographics of their viewers? We can assume that the more biased a media source is, the more skewed its viewers should be, right? And yet, what the statistics clearly show is that there is a far more balanced set of viewers for Fox than for any other cable news network. Strange, isn't it? Again, I don't need to prove this to you to win this one, but it's interesting that you're wrong all the way around on this one.
Haha. No, the more biased the media source, the more MISINFORMED the viewers are.


But the assumption behind any argument about a news source being biased is that their bias will influence people's opinions about various things. So if a news source is biased to the right, the people would be misinformed in ways which will tend to make them believe in or agree with ideas that are in line with political ideas on "the right". But if 30+% of Fox News viewers vote Democrat, then either Fox News isn't that biased, or they're not doing a very good job misinforming people.

I mean, what's the point? What do they gain with all their misinformation if a larger percentage of their viewers still vote Democrat than the percentage of NPR listeners vote GOP?

Quote:
Doesn't matter the makeup of the viewers, only if what they're being told is factual or not. If there was a news source that had a vastly conservative audience but they were consistently less misinformed than any other news source, THAT would be the most unbiased news organization. You can't have a bias towards facts.


Ok. But who decides what constitutes "misinformation"? I would assume that if there is a heavily unbalanced political demographic viewing/listening/reading a given news source it is because of one of two reasons: The news presented is slanted such that it appeals to an unbalanced demographic group *or* the news is presented in such a way so as to gradually slant the views of their audience so that they become an unbalanced demographic group.

If the "biased" news source doesn't result in a demographic audience that is shifted towards that bias, then they're kinda doing it wrong, aren't they?

Quote:
On that case though, Fox loses terribly. Their viewers are far more misinformed on news topics than regular viewers of any other network. October 2003 study from the University of Maryland Program on International Policy Attitudes shows that 80% of regular Fox News viewers had one or more misinformed views, whereas only 23% of regular viewers/listeners of PBS-NPR had one or more misinformed views. Looks to me like Fox News is a plague on reality and PBS/NPR is the most reliable news source to me, even doing a better job of accurately informing the public than the print media, which has been a traditional herald of investigative journalism.


Or the study in question happened to have the same single view bias which NPR has and thus NPR did very well. That really only shows that NPR presents fewer viewpoints and that those viewpoints happen to align with the questions on the study. It doesn't tell us anything about which is less biased. In fact, one could argue that the study indicates that NPR is more biased since the answers given by their viewers were more consistent.


I suspect that what you (and the study in question) are labeling as misinformation is more accurately called "presenting multiple opinions". I'd go into length about why it's better to allow and even encourage those differing opinions, but I'm trying to be somewhat brief here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#139 Apr 18 2011 at 5:59 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:
bsphil wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Fox News doesn't receive taxpayer dollars to pay for their programming, nor do their affiliates receive funding to carry that programming. So, since you're so capable of seeing things in both directions, I assume you agree with me that NPR should not be funded either, right?
Well, they did get a federal tax rebate. More than NPR got in federal funding. I think NPR should be a public service, I'm apathetic about federal funding, mainly because of how relatively small it is.


Huh? There's a massive difference between getting some of the tax money you paid back from the government and actually having a portion of your operation subsidized by the government. Fox News didn't cost the taxpayers anything. On the contrary, as a for profit business, it generated tax revenue. Please tell me you didn't think this was a serious response?


Fox News only paid about 6% in taxes where the typical tax rate is around 31%, so they most certainly did cost the taxpayers something. In contrast, Disney did pay 31% in taxes.
Source


Quote:
Or the study in question happened to have the same single view bias which NPR has and thus NPR did very well. That really only shows that NPR presents fewer viewpoints and that those viewpoints happen to align with the questions on the study. It doesn't tell us anything about which is less biased. In fact, one could argue that the study indicates that NPR is more biased since the answers given by their viewers were more consistent.


If you think that NPR doesn't present all sides equally and fairly, then you obviously have not listened to it.





Edited, Apr 18th 2011 8:03pm by Ailitardif
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#140 Apr 18 2011 at 6:02 PM Rating: Good
******
43,937 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
Let's agree that 1930s totalitarian doctrines don't have to be our only options here.
So no one is going to call me a royalist? :(
I really liked the clothes.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#141 Apr 18 2011 at 7:09 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
Or the study in question happened to have the same single view bias which NPR has and thus NPR did very well.
Jesus christ man, do you ever listen to the things you say? "Huh? The world didn't end December 21st, 1954? The only reason why must have been that our prayers were answered and god stopped the continents from breaking into pieces and sinking down into the ocean! Yup, that's the only explanation. Man, we were so right."
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#142 Apr 19 2011 at 5:57 AM Rating: Good
****
9,278 posts
Quote:
Fact is liberals refuse to slash any of their social programs which amount to most of the US debt. The only program the liberals ever support cutting is the military.


Actually, I'd wager a bet that a majority of the US debt was caused by using deficit spending to pay for an unnecessary war in Afghanistan and an unnecessary war in Iraq. Which makes me wonder, would you actually rather see education, health care, medicare, etc. go to **** because you want to see dead muslims?


Quote:
What it would do is continue to foster an anti-business pro-communist atmosphere. But you already knew that.



I have a couple questions for you varus.

1. What is communism?

2. What is socialism?

3. What is the difference between these things?

4. What is the problem?

Care to explain your incomprehensible confusing views on something you clearly know absolutely **** all about?


Quote:
You're a f*cking idiot. I'm consistently amazed you can figure out how to turn on your computer. There's a reason the US standard of living is the highest in the world. Maybe you should check that out before making more absurdly idiotic statements like the one you just did.


What makes you think you have the highest standard of living in the world? I'll go out on a limb and name Sweden, Canada, and England as having a higher standard of living. Just because your country seems to love thinking it's better than everyone else doesn't make it true.

I don't even know why I bother. You'll never make sense, or pick up a book that wasn't written by someone like Bill O' Reilly, or open your mind to see things from other perspectives. I'd try to explain things using logic, but I figure that it would be lost on you. All you care about it status, pretty, expensive, useless ****, and the Republican Party.

****, the Republicans could suggest concentration camps for all people of arab descent, and you would jump on that bandwagon with all the energy of a 1930s **** Party member, just because it's your party and no matter what, even when they're wrong, they're right. You're not even intelligent enough to be anything other than a mindless drone, doing and saying whatever you're told by the all-seeing, all-knowing leaders of the party. And I feel so, so very sorry for you. You'll die dumb, ignorant and alone, just like most of the other idiots on this increasingly barren rock. So **** you, sir.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#143varusword75, Posted: Apr 19 2011 at 7:52 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Drift,
#144varusword75, Posted: Apr 19 2011 at 7:55 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) drift,
#145 Apr 19 2011 at 8:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,972 posts
varusword75 wrote:
drift,

Quote:
What makes you think you have the highest standard of living in the world? I'll go out on a limb and name Sweden, Canada, and England as having a higher standard of living. Just because your country seems to love thinking it's better than everyone else doesn't make it true.


I hate to break it to you but our country is better than all those places you just listed. More people have more sh*t in this country than all those countries you just listed combined. Don't get mad at us because your country doesn't place any stock in hard work and the freedom to excel. And that's something the federal govn can't give you.


Hate to break it to you, but the goalpost put by driftwood was standard of living (which is included in the Human Development Index). This includes:
Quote:

A long and healthy life: Life expectancy at birth
Access to knowledge: Mean years of schooling and Expected years of schooling
A decent standard of living: GNI per capita (PPP US$)

Drift was wrong about the top three, but Norway, New Zealand, and Australia all beat out the US. They also included an "inequality-adjusted" index, taking into account the inequalities of income, life expectancy, and education among the population, and the US drops to 12.

Edited, Apr 19th 2011 10:05am by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#146 Apr 19 2011 at 8:11 AM Rating: Good
******
43,937 posts
I'm all for pride in your birthplace, but some people are ******* idiots about it.

Can't all be from New York, just deal with it the best you can.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#147 Apr 19 2011 at 8:21 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,699 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Drift was wrong about the top three, but Norway, New Zealand, and Australia all beat out the US. They also included an "inequality-adjusted" index, taking into account the inequalities of income, life expectancy, and education among the population, and the US drops to 12.

Edited, Apr 19th 2011 10:05am by LockeColeMA
Well, the US beats New Zealand who drop from 3rd to not even on the list because there wasn't enough data. What are they trying to hide? Maybe Paulsol should start looking within instead of always attacking the US.

Edited, Apr 19th 2011 11:22am by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#148 Apr 19 2011 at 8:23 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I'm all for pride in your birthplace, but some people are ******* idiots about it.

Can't all be from New York, just deal with it the best you can.


This reminds me, my sister-in-law got accepted to NYU for grad school...she is going to south florida. What the **** is that?
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#149 Apr 19 2011 at 8:25 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,471 posts
Still upset about Canada droping as hard is it did over the last year. Thanks a lot Harper you ******* douche, cut the **** out of social programs, (like he plans to do with education) and spend it on stupid things like he is doing with the new f35 stealth fighters we are getting from lockhead, when there wasn't even an option tabled for competetive bidding. 18B tossed away to upgrade our lolairforce. He could have at least heard an option from Bombardier, which is Canadian, but nooooooooo.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#150 Apr 19 2011 at 8:26 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
Drift was wrong about the top three, but Norway, New Zealand, and Australia all beat out the US. They also included an "inequality-adjusted" index, taking into account the inequalities of income, life expectancy, and education among the population, and the US drops to 12.

Edited, Apr 19th 2011 10:05am by LockeColeMA
Well, the US beats New Zealand who drop from 3rd to not even on the list because there wasn't enough data. What are they trying to hide? Maybe Paulsol should start looking within instead of always attacking the US.

Edited, Apr 19th 2011 11:22am by Uglysasquatch


I heard New Zealand's birth certificate is a fake, but that's another thread.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#151 Apr 19 2011 at 8:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,972 posts
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
I'm all for pride in your birthplace, but some people are ******* idiots about it.

Can't all be from New York, just deal with it the best you can.


This reminds me, my sister-in-law got accepted to NYU for grad school...she is going to south florida. What the **** is that?


NYU is INCREDIBLY expensive, and is located in the most expensive city in the country. South Florida is a much better idea if finances are what you have in mind. I mean, as a Gator I hate the 'Noles, but I used to date a girl who went to NYU - she'll be repaying her loans until she's 40.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 42 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (42)