Fox News [Archive] - Motorsport Forums

anthonyvop

26th March 2010, 19:02

From what I've seen, and admitedly some of that is Glenn Beck, Fox News is the mouthpiece for a political movement in a way that has rarely been seen before.

In the UK accusations of polical bias, particularly against the BBC by whoever is in power at the time, is not unusual.

You obviously don't get PBS, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and the epitome of bias and slanted news.....MSNBC.

Actually most studies have shown that FNC offers the most balanced newscast in the US. During their news shows(Not the evening pundits) they go out of the way to have opposing viewpoints on. Even during their evening pundits FOX has commentators from the Left. Juan Williams, Bob Beckel, Geraldo Rivera, Alan Combs are all regular features. The other Networks have none, that i know of, from the right on their payroll.

Check out Newsbusters to see the conservative point of view when it comes to media bias.
http://newsbusters.org/

Personally, Glenn Beck is a little out their for my tastes but he does bring up good points from time to time.

For news I watch both Fox, CNN, Fox Business and CNBC and more and more my TV is locked on Bloomberg Television.

Jag_Warrior

26th March 2010, 19:08

Years ago I worked in an office that had a Bloomberg terminal. That spoiled me. These days, I generally watch Bloomberg News most of the time. If I'm searching for a story, I'll go to their site first and then I'll look at Reuters (an equally good source for reliable data and facts). I've been subscribing to Reuters' updates for going on ten years now.

I watch Fox(Faux) News about as much as I watch (P)MSNBC... almost never. On occasion I'll watch CNN. But for the most part, if it's a breaking story and it's not on Bloomberg, I'll check out a variety of sources on Google News and read more than one of the stories. I don't really need or want the partisan view on every single story I get - and that's what Fox and MSNBC tend to do. I just don't have the time or the patience for that foolishness.

Mark in Oshawa

27th March 2010, 11:25

Glenn Beck is a a fundamentalist Christian right-wing lunatic but so are a great many Americans, so it's only fair their views are represented.

Beck is a Mormon ..but don't let something like a fact get in the way of your tirade...

Mark in Oshawa

27th March 2010, 11:29

I find Fox biased to the right, but not to the extent MSNBC and even CNN can be to the left. Fox has always had left of center commentators on all their panals, and I would defy anyone to tell me where Chris Wallace is anything but right down the middle. Ditto with Britt Hume really. One on Fox has to separate the news programs from the opinion programs such as O'Reilly and Beck. That said, even O'Reilly doesn't go from any right of center song sheet. Bill has tilted at the windmills of a few right wing sacred cows and gone pitbull on them. O'Reilly is more of a libertarian on some things and just on his own island on theres.

I suggest that if you think Keith Olbermann on MSNBC isn't a joke and you find Fox is, that maybe you should just examine your value system. AT least there is lip service to "Fairness" on Fox..

BDunnell

27th March 2010, 17:19

In the UK accusations of polical bias, particularly against the BBC by whoever is in power at the time, is not unusual.

And always utterly unfounded. Bias in mainstream British news broadcasting is purely in the eye of the beholder.

BDunnell

27th March 2010, 17:21

I find Fox biased to the right, but not to the extent MSNBC and even CNN can be to the left..

The equivalent of Fox's bias would mean that MSNBC and CNN are full of radical revolutionary socialists, which as far as I'm aware they aren't, at least by British standards. Thank goodness for the BBC, by far the best news broadcasting organisation in the world — and I mean that quite genuinely.

Dave B

27th March 2010, 18:12

Thank goodness for the BBC, by far the best news broadcasting organisation in the world — and I mean that quite genuinely.
Again: better hope that Cameron doesn't win. :s

Dave B

27th March 2010, 18:17

By the way, I notice that fellow Murdoch publication The Times is to start charging £2 per week for access to its website.

One news website: £104 per annum, and will contain advertising.

BBC news website: £142 per annum (or free if you don't use a TV to receive live broadcasts). Excellent news website, with not an advert in site, plus as a bonus they chuck in a shedload of national, regional, local and specialist TV channels; 7 national radio stations plus numerous local and regional ones; and the literally wonderful iPlayer (for which you don't even need a licence).

Yeah, that's going to work, Rupert :\

anthonyvop

27th March 2010, 22:24

Fred Basset

27th March 2010, 22:59

Had to chuckle at the tag line next to their logo - http://www.foxnews.com/

"Fair & Balanced" :laugh: :laugh:

You know nothing.. what a silly statement :laugh:

like someone below says.. The Left.. point of view comes from PBS, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and the epitome of bias and slanted news.....MSNBC.

The Right .. Fox

The media bias in this country is so far to the left its amazing my tv don't slide off its stand if i happen to have some CNN on LOL

BDunnell

27th March 2010, 23:08

You need to watch MSNBC, CNN, CBS and NBC. Extreme Left wing/Socialist leaning where Fox tends to be middle of the road. The BBC is very left leaning....at least the BBC we get hear.

You are, with respect, not someone whose views on politics and the media should be taken seriously by anyone. Tell me, what BBC have you got to hear? Regular viewer of Newsnight, are you?

BDunnell

27th March 2010, 23:09

You know nothing.. what a silly statement :laugh:

like someone below says.. The Left.. point of view comes from PBS, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and the epitome of bias and slanted news.....MSNBC.

The Right .. Fox

The media bias in this country is so far to the left its amazing my tv don't slide off its stand if i happen to have some CNN on LOL

Anyone else L-ing-OL? No, me neither.

Brown, Jon Brow

28th March 2010, 00:13

Whether news coverage is right or left depends on your own political view points. If you are right wing then of course the BBC is going to appear as leftist as you are biased to your own views.

Question Time is the most central political broadcast I've seen. They always have one member from the big 3 parties then usually one far left guest and one far right guest. Although I think it is fair to say that most assume that the prestenter, David Dimbleby, is a tory supporter.

anthonyvop

28th March 2010, 04:04

You are, with respect, not someone whose views on politics and the media should be taken seriously by anyone.
Why? is it because I reject your Fascist views?

Tell me, what BBC have you got to hear? Regular viewer of Newsnight, are you?

We get BBC World news America.

I'll give you a glaring example.
A few nights ago I was watching and they were reporting about threats made to Democratic Congressmen after the Obamacare passage. Of Course they gave no evidence of it's being true and they just happen to omit the Republican Congresswoman's Office that was shot at and the other who received a death threat over the phone Which was recorded.
Then the "reporter" made the statement that the majority of Political violence in the USA was historically committed by the right. I almost spit up my scotch.
Had they never heard of the Weather Underground, the Black Panthers? The Chicago 7? Anarchists?, Earth First? Even the recent idiot who flew a plane into a Federal building in Texas? The vast majority of Political violence in the US has been committed by the left and that is a Fact.
And facts are something that the BBC cannot be bothered with if it doesn't suit their agenda.

Mark in Oshawa

28th March 2010, 04:52

The equivalent of Fox's bias would mean that MSNBC and CNN are full of radical revolutionary socialists, which as far as I'm aware they aren't, at least by British standards. Thank goodness for the BBC, by far the best news broadcasting organisation in the world — and I mean that quite genuinely.

You don't see it that way Ben because you are from the left. Those from one side or the other don't always see the bias in their side's news coverage. I can see the Fox slant to the right, but that is ok, I know it is there, and I know how much of it is hyperbole, and how much is the truth. I do know this much: Fox puts a lot of effort to putting some interesting people from the left on there to debate, and they give as good as they get. Alan Combs drives me nuts, but he does get his points in, and is on every week on a few panels. Ditto for Juan Williams and Geraldo Rivera.

When CNN gets someone on serious from the right, it might be the first since they pushed Lou Dobbs aside. MSNBC doesn't even bother to try.

As for your BBC, I like them. I do find they don't always tell the whole story, but neither does the CBC up here in Canada either. That said, one never relies on side's networks and newspapers, you should be reading the spectrum and taking in a few views. The truth usually wins out if you are willing to acknowledge it..

Mark in Oshawa

28th March 2010, 04:57

Why? is it because I reject your Fascist views?

We get BBC World news America.

I'll give you a glaring example.
A few nights ago I was watching and they were reporting about threats made to Democratic Congressmen after the Obamacare passage. Of Course they gave no evidence of it's being true and they just happen to omit the Republican Congresswoman's Office that was shot at and the other who received a death threat over the phone Which was recorded.
Then the "reporter" made the statement that the majority of Political violence in the USA was historically committed by the right. I almost spit up my scotch.
Had they never heard of the Weather Underground, the Black Panthers? The Chicago 7? Anarchists?, Earth First? Even the recent idiot who flew a plane into a Federal building in Texas? The vast majority of Political violence in the US has been committed by the left and that is a Fact.
And facts are something that the BBC cannot be bothered with if it doesn't suit their agenda.

I saw a clip of that online. I agree, they do have a blind spot against the left wing radicals who made the 60's such a great party with the riots in Chicago, the bombs the Weather Underground left around for people to play with. How about in Canada, where the only terrorist/political group to actually kill people are the socialists who were in the PLQ and escaped on a plane to Havana to live in exile?

The left is full of small groups who think nothing of using a little violence or coercion to make their point ( the protestors shutting down Ann Coulter's visit to the U of Ottawa last week being more the usual hypocracy of the left) and while it doesn't make anyone on the left an automatic terrorist, the media sure seems to have a short memory but the only real wack job that anyone even thought of as right is Tim McVeigh, and you didn't see ANYONE on the right defending him. On the contrary, most conservatives would have volunteered to pull the switch on the electric chair to get rid of McVeigh. I don't see anyone in the media in North America digging up too much of the left's craziness...

ArrowsFA1

28th March 2010, 07:01

My experience (subjective to be sure) is that the major broadcast media (on both sides) have become less objective and more biased over the last 10 or so years. That's death to a free society where objective reporting of events can not be had so that people can make informed decisions.
:up:

Your experience is my concern.

BDunnell

28th March 2010, 11:31

You don't see it that way Ben because you are from the left. Those from one side or the other don't always see the bias in their side's news coverage.

Nothing to do with it at all. With the exception of Fox, which I note is only considered a serious news channel by the inarticulate morons on here, I have never watched a news broadcast that I've considered to have had either a left- or a right-wing bias.

Fred Basset

28th March 2010, 14:42

Nothing to do with it at all. With the exception of Fox, which I note is only considered a serious news channel by the inarticulate morons on here, I have never watched a news broadcast that I've considered to have had either a left- or a right-wing bias.

What do you consider yourself to be? Your not inarticulate, i'll give you that much.....

Garry Walker

28th March 2010, 16:21

You are, with respect, not someone whose views on politics and the media should be taken seriously by anyone.

And you think you are?

BDunnell

28th March 2010, 16:23

What do you consider yourself to be? Your not inarticulate, i'll give you that much.....

The confused, badly-written nature of that comment demonstrates why it's unsurprising that you should consider Fox to be a sensible, mainstream news outlet.

Fred Basset

28th March 2010, 16:44

The confused, badly-written nature of that comment demonstrates why it's unsurprising that you should consider Fox to be a sensible, mainstream news outlet.

:laugh: You really are a maroon Dunnell LOL

If you consider Fox to not be sensible, then how about the left that have 5 mainstream news channels in their pocket... do you watch them??

BDunnell

28th March 2010, 18:20

And you think you are?

Compared with you, yes.

BDunnell

28th March 2010, 18:24

If you consider Fox to not be sensible, then how about the left that have 5 mainstream news channels in their pocket... do you watch them??

Offer me some concrete, well-reasoned, factual evidence of there being five mainstream news channels in the pockets of 'the left', whatever the hell that means, and I will gladly go along with it if you're able to prove the case. But you won't be able to, because (a) your opinions are invariably spectacularly ill-informed (and poorly articulated) rather than being based in fact, and (b) there is no such evidence to be found, not that you would be able to carry out the necessary research to locate it even if it did exist.

Fred Basset

28th March 2010, 18:27

Offer me some concrete, well-reasoned, factual evidence of there being five mainstream news channels in the pockets of 'the left', whatever the hell that means, and I will gladly go along with it if you're able to prove the case. But you won't be able to, because (a) your opinions are invariably spectacularly ill-informed (and poorly articulated) rather than being based in fact, and (b) there is no such evidence to be found, not that you would be able to carry out the necessary research to locate it even if it did exist.

Its pretty simple.... watch them ......and you will see that those media channels are biast to the left like Fox is biast to the right.. just ask the majority of the population here too .. thats all you need to do

Fred Basset

28th March 2010, 18:30

Compared with you, yes.

Oh Dunnell.. get off your high horse you maroon.. seriously you are no better than anyone else on this forum even though you consider yourself to be.. your just one of the crowd.. your just a bloke that carries a dictionary with him all day lol

BDunnell

28th March 2010, 18:34

Its pretty simple.... watch them ......and you will see that those media channels are biast to the left like Fox is biast to the right.. just ask the majority of the population here too .. thats all you need to do

Is that your idea of 'evidence'? Oh, and the word is 'biased'. You are doing nothing except underline my view of enthusiastic Fox-watchers (and Daily Mail readers, of which you are/were one, I seem to recall, which also figures.)

BDunnell

28th March 2010, 18:38

Oh Dunnell.. get off your high horse you maroon.. seriously you are no better than anyone else on this forum even though you consider yourself to be.. your just one of the crowd.. your just a bloke that carries a dictionary with him all day lol

Well, that's told me, hasn't it?

Fred Basset

28th March 2010, 18:55

Is that your idea of 'evidence'? Oh, and the word is 'biased'. You are doing nothing except underline my view of enthusiastic Fox-watchers (and Daily Mail readers, of which you are/were one, I seem to recall, which also figures.)

I go by comments from others inc tv producers and journalists who of which i network with as part of my business and the fact that i listen to what the stations say and from that.. its pretty obvious really.. i have neither the time or inclination to want to "prove" myself to you as i don't give a damn what you think actually lol so go take your arrogant self and fish for a fight somewhere else. A day out in Sunny California is calling my name :up:

Bob Riebe

28th March 2010, 19:14

Is that your idea of 'evidence'? Oh, and the word is 'biased'. You are doing nothing except underline my view of enthusiastic Fox-watchers (and Daily Mail readers, of which you are/were one, I seem to recall, which also figures.)
You are saying anyone who disagrees with your vacuous rhetoric proves your point; that is a circular argument more closely related to "I'm rubber-you're glue...," but if that floats your boat, as you wish.

BDunnell

28th March 2010, 20:22

You are saying anyone who disagrees with your vacuous rhetoric proves your point; that is a circular argument more closely related to "I'm rubber-you're glue...," but if that floats your boat, as you wish.

In what way is my rhetoric 'vacuous'? Even if it is, it's certainly no more vacuous than what passes for news broadcasting on Fox. There is no evidence for the assertions made whatsoever.

Rollo

28th March 2010, 20:23

The vast majority of Political violence in the US has been committed by the left and that is a Fact.

Of course. It stands to reason. The right don't need to.
The vast majority of Military violence outside the US has been committed as a result of policies of the right and that is a Fact.

Rollo

28th March 2010, 20:30

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/13/nation/na-hannity-crowd13
Fox News Channel's conservative commentator Sean Hannity has acknowledged to his viewers that he aired video of a Sept. 12 rally that drew tens of thousands of conservative activists during a report on a Capitol protest last week that drew a much more modest crowd.
"We screwed up," Hannity said on his program Wednesday -- after Comedy Central's Jon Stewart on his show called out Fox for mixing images from the two rallies.

Hannity said on his program Wednesday: "Although it pains me to say this, Jon Stewart, Comedy Central, he was right."

Is Comedy Central a more reliable news source than Fox? If it is, then that shows something quite disturbing.

Mark in Oshawa

28th March 2010, 20:53

Nothing to do with it at all. With the exception of Fox, which I note is only considered a serious news channel by the inarticulate morons on here, I have never watched a news broadcast that I've considered to have had either a left- or a right-wing bias.\
So basically if YOU watch it, that makes it valid. All news organizations are neutral except for Fox? That is proving my point actually...you only see the organizations you DON'T agree with as biased.

Anyone with half a loaf could see that the Guardian is to the Left and the Tely is to the right....except apparently those who read the Guardian I guess. Maybe someone like Fred who maybe Reads the Tely is your polar opposite, but a lot of us who watch and read lots of media know the truth. They all have a bias...

Mark in Oshawa

28th March 2010, 20:59

Of course. It stands to reason. The right don't need to.
The vast majority of Military violence outside the US has be
en committed as a result of policies of the right and that is a Fact.

and all Miltary is Right of center? Ummm the Red Army was left. Many of the terror groups are marxist based.

You said outside the US. We are talking about Fox, and the BBC story that stated all the political violence in the US being RIGHT wing based while ignoring the long history of it on the continent from leftish organizations.

I am tired of this tired and cliched notion that there is no media bias except Fox. It is a fallacy to believe that many of the MSM outlets in the US are neutral at all when you have their employee's taking polls and coming out 80% or more for voting Democrat every election, and the fawning coverage they gave Obama last presidential cycle.

A poll was done by US watchdog/think tank (not a right wing one either) and they came out and Said Fox was playing it more down the middle on their NEWS programs (not O'Relly or Beck) than the other outlets in the US. I wont bother turning the internet upside down to look for it, because I have a race to watch, but I am just floored at the impish, conceited view of the few people on this forum who just refuse to see any bias BUT Fox. They all have a bias, because human beings are usually incapable of being neutral on anything, and the last time I looked, the editors and producers of all media are humans.

BDunnell

28th March 2010, 21:18

\
So basically if YOU watch it, that makes it valid. All news organizations are neutral except for Fox? That is proving my point actually...you only see the organizations you DON'T agree with as biased.

Anyone with half a loaf could see that the Guardian is to the Left and the Tely is to the right....except apparently those who read the Guardian I guess. Maybe someone like Fred who maybe Reads the Tely is your polar opposite, but a lot of us who watch and read lots of media know the truth. They all have a bias...

You will note I used the word 'watch'. Clearly, I wouldn't accuse newspapers of a lack of bias.

Oh, and the comment aimed at me that 'you only see the organizations you DON'T agree with as biased' is simply untrue. I neither agree nor disagree with other channels I see — that is precisely my point. The fact that Fox is the exception proves my rule.

Mark in Oshawa

28th March 2010, 21:21

You will note I used the word 'watch'. Clearly, I wouldn't accuse newspapers of a lack of bias.

You think the BBC, CNN, Fox and the three Big American networks are no different? Obviously you see Fox as unlike the others but that is because it leans right, but the others are neutral? BBC comes close at times on some stories, and covers the news pretty well, but I wouldn't even put them as neutral, any more than I put the state financed CBC here in Canada neutral. I have a friend who works there, and he KNOWS the people he works with are to the left on a lot, and it does effect their stories, and they know it as well. They do a pretty good job on a lot of stuff, but there are times.....

AS for your rule....I am trying to figure it out. You see Fox as an exception. I see Fox as just the only one on the right, and you don't want to see the others on a political spectrum.

BDunnell

28th March 2010, 21:22

I am tired of this tired and cliched notion that there is no media bias except Fox.

Nobody is suggesting that. Of course there is bias in the media. But those of us living in countries where the best television news reporting has retained high standards without resorting to shouty madmen to boost ratings look on Fox with a degree of horror and amazement.

BDunnell

28th March 2010, 21:23

You think the BBC, CNN, Fox and the three Big American networks are no different? Obviously you see Fox as unlike the others but that is because it leans right, but the others are neutral? BBC comes close at times on some stories, and covers the news pretty well, but I wouldn't even put them as neutral, any more than I put the state financed CBC here in Canada neutral. I have a friend who works there, and he KNOWS the people he works with are to the left on a lot, and it does effect their stories, and they know it as well. They do a pretty good job on a lot of stuff, but there are times.....

AS for your rule....I am trying to figure it out. You see Fox as an exception. I see Fox as just the only one on the right, and you don't want to see the others on a political spectrum.

I'm sure it happens as you say, but there is no comparison between that and what we see on Fox, and you know it.

Mark in Oshawa

28th March 2010, 21:25

As for the assertion that those who watch Fox have less valid views than yours Ben, that is silly as me saying everyone left of center is full of crap 100%. You want to have the debate, and have the respect for the other side, then drop this myth that all Fox viewers are trogdlytes and all BBC viewers and Guardian readers are just senisble folk....

The truth is on many things, the truth is all in how you see it, but on hard and fast certianties, some news organziations are amazing in what they leave out...or what they choose to see....

Mark in Oshawa

28th March 2010, 21:26

I'm sure it happens as you say, but there is no comparison between that and what we see on Fox, and you know it.

There is a great deal in common with what is on Fox's NEWS programs. Not Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck. Those guys come with the sideshow but the news. Britt Hume. Chris Wallace. Chris's dad Mike has been the 60 Minutes staple for years. Anyone who thinks Chris Wallace is some sort of right wing crank hasn't been watching his programs obviously.

You don't like Fox. We get that. Stop the fiction they are any more biased than MSNBC or CNN

anthonyvop

28th March 2010, 21:30

Of course. It stands to reason. The right don't need to.
The vast majority of Military violence outside the US has been committed as a result of policies of the right and that is a Fact.

It is?

Do you know that ever major US military action of the last 100 years except one took place with a left-winger or a left leaning President in office?

WW1...Wilson
WW2...FDR
Korea...Truman
Vietnam...Kennedy/Johnson
1st Gulf War...George H.W. Bush

anthonyvop

28th March 2010, 21:31

Mark in Oshawa

28th March 2010, 21:33

Nobody is suggesting that. Of course there is bias in the media. But those of us living in countries where the best television news reporting has retained high standards without resorting to shouty madmen to boost ratings look on Fox with a degree of horror and amazement.

Oh all hail the BBC...it can DO NO WRONG. BS!!! They are good....but they have their biasis. Futhermore, what FOX is doing in the US is no different than CNN's or MSNBC's coverage except they take the right's point of view more seriously.

AS for this myth the UK has some sort of superior media culture, you guys have your boobs and idiots in the media. I guess if one is British, one has culture? Ben...you elitist snob!! That almost sounds like you believe in your class system.....

BeansBeansBeans

28th March 2010, 21:46

If anyone knows of a news channel that's as blatantly left-leaning as Fox is right-leaning, please let me know, it'd be the funniest thing on the box.

anthonyvop

28th March 2010, 21:58

If anyone knows of a news channel that's as blatantly left-leaning as Fox is right-leaning, please let me know, it'd be the funniest thing on the box.

MSNBC is the worst. Followed by CNN, NBC and CBS. I put the BBC somewhere between CNN and NBC.

All lean much more to the left than Fox leans to the right. MSNBC doesn't even try to have opposing views on.

Jag_Warrior

28th March 2010, 22:02

If anyone knows of a news channel that's as blatantly left-leaning as Fox is right-leaning, please let me know, it'd be the funniest thing on the box.

MSNBC would probably qualify. Although (AFAIK) even they don't help create the political rallies that they then cover (as Fox has done for the tea baggers). But there's no doubt what camp MSNBC is in. For my news watching needs, I seldom waste time watching Fox or MSNBC - IMO, they're both echo chambers for people who need to hear their beliefs confirmed by outsiders.

Fred Basset

28th March 2010, 22:03

If anyone knows of a news channel that's as blatantly left-leaning as Fox is right-leaning, please let me know, it'd be the funniest thing on the box.

Try the stations already mentioned at least 3 times in this thread

BDunnell

28th March 2010, 22:10

AS for this myth the UK has some sort of superior media culture, you guys have your boobs and idiots in the media. I guess if one is British, one has culture? Ben...you elitist snob!! That almost sounds like you believe in your class system.....

I do genuinely believe in the superiority of the best bits of the British news media to their equivalents in most other countries. Nothing snobbish about that.

Mark in Oshawa

28th March 2010, 22:12

MSNBC would probably qualify. Although (AFAIK) even they don't help create the political rallies that they then cover (as Fox has done for the tea baggers). But there's no doubt what camp MSNBC is in. For my news watching needs, I seldom waste time watching Fox or MSNBC - IMO, they're both echo chambers for people who need to hear their beliefs confirmed by outsiders.

The Tea Party movement was NOT started by Fox. Started on their own, but Glenn Beck was the guy doing a lot of the encouragement, but when he was doing THAT, he was just starting at Fox. IT wasn't the news department's policy. I just laughed tho when the Tea Party movement marched on Washington and the CNN reporters showed a few guys with racist crap on OBama and made it sound like they were just a few kooks when there was 1000's of people there, most just stating the feeling they didn't like the tone of things from Obama. Nothing racist to it. Scratch into any large group of people you find a few wingnuts, but CNN made it sound like it was JUST a few wingnuts.

The point is MSNBC is every bit and MORE biased than Fox. That is ok..they are entitled to be, but when you see the ratings of FNC vs MSNBC, I think the point of view that FNC has has to be somewhat more moderated at some point. As I said, I see lots of left of center pundits on Fox on the payroll. I don't see any right of center hard boiled conseratives on the payroll of too many networks in the US.

AS for Canada....well they play their bias games here too, but I wont get into that...for it is more or less something you have to grasp in our milieu to see AND for the most part, the networks here do play it pretty neutral on most stories..

BeansBeansBeans

28th March 2010, 22:14

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM4xqnukQrM&feature=related) is genuinely chilling.

BDunnell

28th March 2010, 22:15

And which country is that?

The UK. You know full well where I come from.

BDunnell

28th March 2010, 22:19

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM4xqnukQrM&feature=related) is genuinely chilling.

People like him would simply be laughed off the screens in the UK. Mind you, we do tolerate the continued existence of Jeremy Clarkson.

BeansBeansBeans

28th March 2010, 22:23

People like him would simply be laughed off the screens in the UK. Mind you, we do tolerate the continued existence of Jeremy Clarkson.

The continued employment of Clarkson is living proof that the BBC does not have a strong left wing bias.

Fred Basset

28th March 2010, 22:38

You will note I used the word 'watch'. Clearly, I wouldn't accuse newspapers of a lack of bias.

Oh, and the comment aimed at me that 'you only see the organizations you DON'T agree with as biased' is simply untrue. I neither agree nor disagree with other channels I see — that is precisely my point. The fact that Fox is the exception proves my rule.

It proves nothing as all the other channels are exactly the same in the other direction Dunnell.. Do you live in America? no you don't so for you to say this and that about Fox and not the others is silly

Mark in Oshawa

28th March 2010, 22:50

The continued employment of Clarkson is living proof that the BBC does not have a strong left wing bias.

Alas, he isn't doing a political show tho is he? I agree the BBC is more centerist than some of its critics want to acknowledge, but I will agree with Tony's story on how the BBC just ignored all the leftish terror/protest groups in the US using violence while going on about the anti Obama nuts.....THAT was indeed bias through omission.

Mark in Oshawa

28th March 2010, 22:53

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM4xqnukQrM&feature=related) is genuinely chilling.

Beck is a guy on at 5 pm, which is a dead zone traditionally for the news networks. He does this goofy schtick because it is getting him viewers. Scratch beneath all the schtick, and he has some points to make. Beck isn't however Fox News. Watch the actual news programs, and the coverage is more centered. No different than if Jonathon Ross or some other BBC personality did something goofy for ratings (hello Clarkson...), but I don't see the BBC as what Clarkson says or Jonathan Ross says.

BDunnell

28th March 2010, 23:02

Alas, he isn't doing a political show tho is he? I agree the BBC is more centerist than some of its critics want to acknowledge, but I will agree with Tony's story on how the BBC just ignored all the leftish terror/protest groups in the US using violence while going on about the anti Obama nuts.....THAT was indeed bias through omission.

Jeremy Clarkson is allowed to spout his ill-considered views in just the same manner as Glenn Beck and his ilk are, and this obviously doesn't trouble the BBC.

As for the point about the Obama-related stories, that is solely your interpretation of it. I can well understand why one story would be considered more newsworthy than the other. And how do you know that the BBC didn't, somewhere, cover the actions of those left-wing groups? Have you been through all the BBC's online, TV and radio output to check? Or do you now believe everything one of the forums' less considered members has to say if it tallies with your belief in some sort of grandiose conspiracy?

BDunnell

28th March 2010, 23:05

No different than if Jonathon Ross or some other BBC personality did something goofy for ratings (hello Clarkson...), but I don't see the BBC as what Clarkson says or Jonathan Ross says.

That is a reasonable, well-made point.

BDunnell

28th March 2010, 23:06

The continued employment of Clarkson is living proof that the BBC does not have a strong left wing bias.

To say nothing of all the Conservative MPs who have hosted Have I Got News for You, Michael Gove being a pundit on Newsnight Review, and so on and so on.

Mark in Oshawa

28th March 2010, 23:25

Jeremy Clarkson is allowed to spout his ill-considered views in just the same manner as Glenn Beck and his ilk are, and this obviously doesn't trouble the BBC.

As for the point about the Obama-related stories, that is solely your interpretation of it. I can well understand why one story would be considered more newsworthy than the other. And how do you know that the BBC didn't, somewhere, cover the actions of those left-wing groups? Have you been through all the BBC's online, TV and radio output to check? Or do you now believe everything one of the forums' less considered members has to say if it tallies with your belief in some sort of grandiose conspiracy?

I am not accusing the BBC as being part of some grand left wing conspiracy. My criticism of that story concerning the right wing terror/left wing terror groups in the US is tho valid. They overlooked the Weather Underground and the Black Panthers and made it sound like the only political violence in the US is from the right. It isn't, and they overlooked it, and maybe that is by incompetance or is on purpose I don't know. My point is, I don't HATE the BBC. I don't see enough of it on a regular basis to brand it one way or the other but I will say it can vary.

What I am asking you to do is grasp that outside of the "enterfortainment" people on FOX, their actual news is more inline with the norm. It is to the right, I wont dispute, but it isn't so obvious that it is blatant. No more than CNN is radically left. CNN is what I have watched on and off for years, and they lost their lead when they did swing to the left about 10 years ago. They are more centered now but that is my opinion I suppose only.

MSNBC makes no bones about their biases, and it was obvious if you saw the political convention coverage from the DNC and RNC nominations in 08. Keith Olbermann was so over the top that after his tirades on their news coverage of the RNC he was banished back to his show. Their coverage was dreadful, but lucky for the sane of this world, their ratings reflected it.

BDunnell

28th March 2010, 23:33

I am not accusing the BBC as being part of some grand left wing conspiracy. My criticism of that story concerning the right wing terror/left wing terror groups in the US is tho valid. They overlooked the Weather Underground and the Black Panthers and made it sound like the only political violence in the US is from the right. It isn't, and they overlooked it, and maybe that is by incompetance or is on purpose I don't know.

But how do you know it was overlooked?

MSNBC makes no bones about their biases, and it was obvious if you saw the political convention coverage from the DNC and RNC nominations in 08. Keith Olbermann was so over the top that after his tirades on their news coverage of the RNC he was banished back to his show. Their coverage was dreadful, but lucky for the sane of this world, their ratings reflected it.

Don't get me wrong — what I have seen and heard of Olbermann is laughable too, if not as psychotic to me as is Beck.

Mark in Oshawa

28th March 2010, 23:37

Ben, you ask how it was overlooked.

Tony posted this:

"
I'll give you a glaring example.
A few nights ago I was watching and they were reporting about threats made to Democratic Congressmen after the Obamacare passage. Of Course they gave no evidence of it's being true and they just happen to omit the Republican Congresswoman's Office that was shot at and the other who received a death threat over the phone Which was recorded.
Then the "reporter" made the statement that the majority of Political violence in the USA was historically committed by the right. I almost spit up my scotch.
Had they never heard of the Weather Underground, the Black Panthers? The Chicago 7? Anarchists?, Earth First? Even the recent idiot who flew a plane into a Federal building in Texas? The vast majority of Political violence in the US has been committed by the left and that is a Fact.
And facts are something that the BBC cannot be bothered with if it doesn't suit their agenda."

I saw this story Ben...there was no balance. Whatever the BBC normally does being towards being unbiased I can believe, but on this story, Tony has a point.

This isn't the first time I have seen this sort of slant by media on this sort of thing. All the talk of violence being threatened towards Obama is on some of the US MSM networks, but the reality is there is no shortage of political left violence in North America. If the media wants to show one side, then they will be showing their bias. It isnt' against some law of nature, but it exists.

AS for your condemenation of Olbermann Ben, I commend you. I liked him when he was a sportscaster in Detroit....but when I heard his political rantings...well...

BDunnell

28th March 2010, 23:51

Ben, you ask how it was overlooked.

Tony posted this:

"
I'll give you a glaring example.
A few nights ago I was watching and they were reporting about threats made to Democratic Congressmen after the Obamacare passage. Of Course they gave no evidence of it's being true and they just happen to omit the Republican Congresswoman's Office that was shot at and the other who received a death threat over the phone Which was recorded.
Then the "reporter" made the statement that the majority of Political violence in the USA was historically committed by the right. I almost spit up my scotch.
Had they never heard of the Weather Underground, the Black Panthers? The Chicago 7? Anarchists?, Earth First? Even the recent idiot who flew a plane into a Federal building in Texas? The vast majority of Political violence in the US has been committed by the left and that is a Fact.
And facts are something that the BBC cannot be bothered with if it doesn't suit their agenda."

I saw this story Ben...there was no balance. Whatever the BBC normally does being towards being unbiased I can believe, but on this story, Tony has a point.

This is one broadcast we are talking about here, described by someone whose opinions I do not personally trust. Had you seen it and informed me of same, I would be far more inclined to believe the account.

Bob Riebe

29th March 2010, 00:37

In what way is my rhetoric 'vacuous'? Even if it is, it's certainly no more vacuous than what passes for news broadcasting on Fox. There is no evidence for the assertions made whatsoever.
You are correct, there is NO evidence for YOUR assertions whatsoever, glad you saw the truth.

BDunnell

29th March 2010, 01:20

You are correct, there is NO evidence for YOUR assertions whatsoever, glad you saw the truth.

Er... no. But thanks for trying.

Mark in Oshawa

29th March 2010, 01:42

This is one broadcast we are talking about here, described by someone whose opinions I do not personally trust. Had you seen it and informed me of same, I would be far more inclined to believe the account.
One Broadcast isn't a network...and I have admitted the BBC is probably closer to the center than Tony thinks BUT I will point out that errors like that are not totally uncommon either....some reporters will put their biases in numerous stories, and some wont. Just the same, it puts stock in my theory that no network is either all this or all that, it depends on the people working there. The fact is tho most in media tend to be left of center at least in the US and Canada.

anthonyvop

29th March 2010, 03:39

(as Fox has done for the tea baggers).
ASFAIK Fox does not cover male homosexual sex acts.

If you mean the Tea Parties then Fox is the only network that gives it the coverage it is due.
The Tea Party movement scares the crap of the left. Organized conservatives tend to do that.

As for the "tea bagger" mention. That is a another glaring example of media Bias. CNN, NBC, and CBS have allowed their reporters and commentators to use that derogatory and franky, infantile term to marginalize the single largest political movement in the USA since the inception of Republican Party.

Bob Riebe

29th March 2010, 06:38

Er... no. But thanks for trying.
Well --at least you admit you do not know the truth.

ArrowsFA1

29th March 2010, 10:48

Do you know that ever major US military action of the last 100 years except one took place with a left-winger or a left leaning President in office?
That got me thinking...Where exactly is the tipping point of the 'left'/'right' divide? Does it move according to the times and/or which side/extreme of the divide you sit on, or whether you live in the UK or the US?

Imagine it were a fixed point.

How far right would that make Glenn Beck, who descibed President Obama as a revolutionary Marxist recently? Or would that make Beck far closer to the centre?

How far left is FDR viewed in this context?

:crazy:

BDunnell

29th March 2010, 13:18

Well --at least you admit you do not know the truth.

And at least you again underline the assertion of many Brits that Americans aren't big on irony. Thanks!

chuck34

29th March 2010, 13:20

The UK. You know full well where I come from.

Well, since you're flying the German flag under your name ... some might question.

But if you're in the UK then how do you watch all the US news to know all these things that you seem to be stating as FACT? I can believe that you probably can watch some CNN (but is it really the same as the US version? CNN international perhaps?), same for FOX and MSNBC. But I find it hard to believe that you get the NBC, CBS, and ABC Nightly News programs, if I'm wrong then that's fine. But just as we only get BBC News America and not the UK version of things, I would suspect that you don't get our version of many programs.

So as I won't comment on the BBC because I am truly ignorant about it, perhaps you should know your limitations as well.

chuck34

29th March 2010, 13:24

As for the point about the Obama-related stories, that is solely your interpretation of it. I can well understand why one story would be considered more newsworthy than the other.

Considered newsworthy by whom? THAT's the whole point. Some producer at CNN or where ever may think story X isn't "newsworthy" and not show it. Then later in the day a viewer sees that story on Fox (or anywhere for that matter) and thinks that it is newsworthy. So naturally they may question CNN's bias. Those who control the media/news control the conversation. Those who control the conversation control the mind.

And how do you know that the BBC didn't, somewhere, cover the actions of those left-wing groups? Have you been through all the BBC's online, TV and radio output to check? Or do you now believe everything one of the forums' less considered members has to say if it tallies with your belief in some sort of grandiose conspiracy?

And how do you know that Fox doesn't cover the things you would like them to? Do you comb through all their online content? ALL their broadcasts? All their radio programs? Have you ever even watched anything on Fox other than YouTube clips of Beck/Hannity/O'Rielly?

Fred Basset

29th March 2010, 16:07

And at least you again underline the assertion of many Brits that Americans aren't big on irony. Thanks!

Yeah but Americans are just a whole lot nicer, easier to get on with and don't think they're so much better than everyone else unlike you Dunnell

Fred Basset

29th March 2010, 16:09

Well, since you're flying the German flag under your name ... some might question.

But if you're in the UK then how do you watch all the US news to know all these things that you seem to be stating as FACT? I can believe that you probably can watch some CNN (but is it really the same as the US version? CNN international perhaps?), same for FOX and MSNBC. But I find it hard to believe that you get the NBC, CBS, and ABC Nightly News programs, if I'm wrong then that's fine. But just as we only get BBC News America and not the UK version of things, I would suspect that you don't get our version of many programs.

So as I won't comment on the BBC because I am truly ignorant about it, perhaps you should know your limitations as well.

He doesn't ever mention it as he can't watch the programmes.. convenient that he forgot to mention that on the opportunities i gave him..

He flys the German flag cos he's a well (insert answer here) :laugh:

BeansBeansBeans

29th March 2010, 16:38

He doesn't ever mention it as he can't watch the programmes...

Why not? I live in the UK and I can watch all of those stations you've mentioned through my basic Sky package.

BeansBeansBeans

29th March 2010, 16:44

Yeah but Americans are just a whole lot nicer, easier to get on with and don't think they're so much better than everyone else unlike you Dunnell

Eh? Many Americans (including the previous president) though that America was uniquely blessed by God. If that's not the result of a superiority complex I don't know what is.

Fred Basset

29th March 2010, 16:55

Why not? I live in the UK and I can watch all of those stations you've mentioned through my basic Sky package.

No you can't.. NBC, ABC...

You can get CNN Itnl and also MSNBC Intl but not what we see here

Jag_Warrior

29th March 2010, 18:08

ASFAIK Fox does not cover male homosexual sex acts.

If you mean the Tea Parties then Fox is the only network that gives it the coverage it is due.
The Tea Party movement scares the crap of the left. Organized conservatives tend to do that.

As for the "tea bagger" mention. That is a another glaring example of media Bias. CNN, NBC, and CBS have allowed their reporters and commentators to use that derogatory and franky, infantile term to marginalize the single largest political movement in the USA since the inception of Republican Party.

You're right. To compare a bunch of cowards, who would try to blow up a man's house (and so stupid that they went to the wrong house) over his vote on legislation, to male homosexuals, isn't right. It's an insult to male homosexuals.
Perriello's brother attacked after Tea Party posts wrong address for health care protest (http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/241055)

I was a member of United We Stand from the beginning pretty much to the end. We had major fiscal concerns about the nation too. For the most part, that was a very diverse group of concerned people (who yes, leaned to the right on most issues). But it was also a group which conducted itself with civility and intelligence. We had a positive vibe about us. If & when these tea people have the numbers to get one of their candidates the biggest vote total of any third party Presidential candidate in modern times, then we'll discuss how real they are. Until then, the ones who act like barbarians get no respect from me.

I won't paint them all with the same brush, because there are actually quite a few tea party groups. But yeppers, the ones who are just a bunch of ignorant, paranoid thugs: TEA BAGGERS!

But whether they're good or bad, a (supposed) "news organizations" has no business organizing or supporting their rallies. Only someone who went to the Sarah Palin School of Journalism wouldn't realize that.

billiaml

29th March 2010, 19:42

Isn't TEA (as in Tea Parties) an acronym for "Taxed Enough Already?"

anthonyvop

29th March 2010, 19:48

Eh? Many Americans (including the previous president) though that America was uniquely blessed by God. If that's not the result of a superiority complex I don't know what is.

And the Brits don't? Pax Britanica? "The sun never sets on the British EMPIRE"?
You guys are a humble lot...yea right!

BTW. It isn't a "superiority complex" if it is true.

Bob Riebe

29th March 2010, 20:12

And at least you again underline the assertion of many Brits that Americans aren't big on irony. Thanks!
That boat would float- if you were using a pretence of ignorance but you are not, so once again your boat does not float.

Rollo

29th March 2010, 20:33

And the Brits don't? Pax Britanica? "The sun never sets on the British EMPIRE"?
You guys are a humble lot...yea right!

The sun never sets on the British Empire because God doesn't trust the British in the dark :D

Actually because of geographical placement, it was then true and still is now. There is always sunlight in either the UK, Australia or Canada. The same could also have been said of Spain at one time as well.

BTW. It isn't a "superiority complex" if it is true.

The British Empire reached its height in 1922, when it held about 458 million people or roughly 1/4 of everyone on earth; and dominion on all seven continents. It was the biggest empire in history.

And what word do you use to describe Great Britain? The name's in the title.

anthonyvop

30th March 2010, 04:53

And what word do you use to describe Great Britain?

One time super-power. 2nd largest empire in History back in the day.

chuck34

30th March 2010, 13:29

You're right. To compare a bunch of cowards, who would try to blow up a man's house (and so stupid that they went to the wrong house) over his vote on legislation, to male homosexuals, isn't right. It's an insult to male homosexuals.
Perriello's brother attacked after Tea Party posts wrong address for health care protest (http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/241055)

I was a member of United We Stand from the beginning pretty much to the end. We had major fiscal concerns about the nation too. For the most part, that was a very diverse group of concerned people (who yes, leaned to the right on most issues). But it was also a group which conducted itself with civility and intelligence. We had a positive vibe about us. If & when these tea people have the numbers to get one of their candidates the biggest vote total of any third party Presidential candidate in modern times, then we'll discuss how real they are. Until then, the ones who act like barbarians get no respect from me.

I won't paint them all with the same brush, because there are actually quite a few tea party groups. But yeppers, the ones who are just a bunch of ignorant, paranoid thugs: TEA BAGGERS!

But whether they're good or bad, a (supposed) "news organizations" has no business organizing or supporting their rallies. Only someone who went to the Sarah Palin School of Journalism wouldn't realize that.

So what would you call this guy? Just to illustrate that the "right-wing" doesn't have a monopoly on ignorant, paranoid thugs.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/35152.html

"Federal authorities have arrested a Philadelphia man and charged him with threatening to kill House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and his family."

"In a video posted on YouTube, Leboon said Cantor was a "liar, you're a Lucifer, you're a pig, a greedy [expletive] pig." He also seemed to refer to a bullet found in Cantor’s office last week and said it will be placed in his head."

"On back-to-back days in June 2008, a man who called himself “Norman Leboon Sr” from Philadelphia gave $255 and $250 to Obama for America."

ShiftingGears

30th March 2010, 13:34

chuck34

30th March 2010, 14:00

The use of the term 'homicide bomber' from the other thread is weird. Why does Fox use a term that is very broad for describing a specific type of bomber?

It is the wrong term to use for suicide bombers, regardless of whether they kill other people when they blow themselves up or not.

Why is this strange? These people are not commiting suicide. They are commiting homicide. I think that the term "suicide bomber" has been wrong all along. "Homicide bomber" is more accurate, and precice. That is unless they guy, or girl, really f's up and doesn't kill anyone.

And I don't think that it's just Fox using that term, I think I've heard it other places as well, but could be wrong on that.

EuroTroll

30th March 2010, 14:31

BeansBeansBeans

30th March 2010, 15:44

The word suicide needs to be in there in order to differentiate between those who kill themselves in the act and those who don't.

Christopher Hitchens prefers the term suicide murderer.

F1boat

30th March 2010, 16:53

One time super-power. 2nd largest empire in History back in the day.

IMO it's number one empire in history. I give 1st to them, 2nd to the Roman Empire and 3rd to the Empire of Alexander the Great.

About the Tea party: my personal opinion is that it is a quasy fascist movement, very dangerous for democracy in the USA. However, if it runs its candidate against one of the GOP, it will guarantee 2nd term for Obama and it will split the vote of the right.

chuck34

30th March 2010, 18:05

IMO it's number one empire in history. I give 1st to them, 2nd to the Roman Empire and 3rd to the Empire of Alexander the Great.

About the Tea party: my personal opinion is that it is a quasy fascist movement, very dangerous for democracy in the USA. However, if it runs its candidate against one of the GOP, it will guarantee 2nd term for Obama and it will split the vote of the right.

That may be the funniest post I have seen in a while. Why in the world would you think that the TEA party is "quasy fascist"? Do you have any idea what the word fascist means, or do you just assume that it is a synonym for "right-wing"? And if you think that they are "dangerous for democracy" then you clearly have NO IDEA what they are all about. Inform yourself before you go making such statements. I'm fine if you have a disagreement with what they stand for, I can respect differences. But from this post I think it's clear you don't understand what they are protesting.

Although I do have to agree that if there is a 3rd party candidate that splits the conservative vote then that would guaruntee an Obama 2nd term. Hopefully the Republicans just nominate a good conservative candidate and then we won't have to worry about any of that.

Bob Riebe

30th March 2010, 18:19

The word suicide needs to be in there in order to differentiate between those who kill themselves in the act and those who don't.

Christopher Hitchens prefers the term suicide murderer.
No- homicide- is used to show that these people have murder as the intent; that the murder dies is not the prime intent or suject, unless the murder's life is more important than those murdered.

Jag_Warrior

30th March 2010, 18:33

So what would you call this guy? Just to illustrate that the "right-wing" doesn't have a monopoly on ignorant, paranoid thugs.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/35152.html

"Federal authorities have arrested a Philadelphia man and charged him with threatening to kill House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and his family."

"In a video posted on YouTube, Leboon said Cantor was a "liar, you're a Lucifer, you're a pig, a greedy [expletive] pig." He also seemed to refer to a bullet found in Cantor’s office last week and said it will be placed in his head."

"On back-to-back days in June 2008, a man who called himself “Norman Leboon Sr” from Philadelphia gave $255 and $250 to Obama for America."

If he was member of some organized group, I would describe it exactly as I did the tea baggers. According to Cantor, he's being targeted because he's a Jew. So maybe this guy, in addition to some other things, is also an anti-Semite. I don't know.

People who employ violence to further their politics are barbarians, as I see it. There is sometimes a time and a place for violence, when systems are being formed. But once an established political system is in place, which can deal with political disagreements, violence has no place for ANYONE!

ShiftingGears

30th March 2010, 21:43

Homicide bomber would be the correct term to use in those circumstances. If the main intent it to kill yourself and the others killed are "collateral damage" then you're a sucide bomber. If the main intent is to kill others and your demise is the way you accomplish it then you're a homicide bomber.

But that means anyone with a bomb who kills someone else not necessarily themselves is a 'homicide bomber'- it's too much of a blanket term. The term suicide bomber is pretty self explanatory, homicide bomber is not.

What are you then if you kill others with a bomb but not yourself?

I'm not a native speaker, but I think "suicide bomber" is the better term. "Suicide" - you kill yourself. "Bomber" - you kill others too. All very clear..

Yep, no need to refer to it any differently.

Bob Riebe

30th March 2010, 22:17

But that means anyone with a bomb who kills someone else not necessarily themselves is a 'homicide bomber'- it's too much of a blanket term. The term suicide bomber is pretty self explanatory, homicide bomber is not.

Yep, no need to refer to it any differently.
Homicide bomber is self-explanatory to anyone who understands English, including those for whom it is not their first language.

At worst look up the word.

This is being bandied about simply to trash Fox.

anthonyvop

30th March 2010, 22:29

IMO it's number one empire in history. I give 1st to them, 2nd to the Roman Empire and 3rd to the Empire of Alexander the Great.

Spanish Empire was larger than all that you mentioned.

About the Tea party: my personal opinion is that it is a quasy fascist movement, very dangerous for democracy in the USA. However, if it runs its candidate against one of the GOP, it will guarantee 2nd term for Obama and it will split the vote of the right.

How can the Tea party movement be Fascist?
Fascism is a SOCIALIST form of Government. If there is a group in the US that is Fascist it is the Democratic Party.

ShiftingGears

30th March 2010, 22:32

Homicide bomber is self-explanatory to anyone who understands English, including those for whom it is not their first language.

And it does not explain the actions or methods of the bomber, only the intent of their actions. People tend to want specifics when reading news stories, like how bombers killed people. Like how people want to know what weapons murderers use.

At worst look up the word.

Thanks for the advice, Shakespeare.

This is being bandied about simply to trash Fox.

It's being discussed because it is a poor phrase and I couldn't give two $hits where it came from.

Bob Riebe

30th March 2010, 22:48

And it does not explain the actions or methods of the bomber, only the intent of their actions. People tend to want specifics when reading news stories, like how bombers killed people. Like how people want to know what weapons murderers use.

Main Entry: ho·mi·cide
Pronunciation: \ˈhä-mə-ˌsīd, ˈhō-\
Function: noun

1 : a person who kills another
2 : a killing of one human being by another

Self-explanatory, period.

Unless one wants to make that the bomber was killed MORE important than the people murdered, which the liberals in this country try very hard to do.

Daniel

30th March 2010, 22:55

WTF? They're suicide bombers.....

ShiftingGears

30th March 2010, 22:58

Unless one wants to make that the bomber was killed MORE important than the people murdered, which the liberals in this country try very hard to do.

WTF is this? The term suicide bomber is used to highlight the method that the killer used to kill people, not a freaking judgement on the worth of who died.

What a waste of time this argument is.

Daniel

30th March 2010, 23:05

Is Bob Riebe a rebrand of that other guy who always talks BS?

Bob Riebe

30th March 2010, 23:35

Is Bob Riebe a rebrand of that other guy who always talks BS?
No I am not you!

As this is a thread started to trash Fox news, this silly item came solely for that purpose.

BDunnell

30th March 2010, 23:42

Is Bob Riebe a rebrand of that other guy who always talks BS?

Certainly, as per the post above, the level of wit and humour is equally sparkling.

Daniel

31st March 2010, 00:13

Well I reported him anyway :) If this is indeed the 2nd account of the person I think it is then he'll be doubly banned :D

Rollo

31st March 2010, 00:26

That may be the funniest post I have seen in a while. Why in the world would you think that the TEA party is "quasy fascist"? Do you have any idea what the word fascist means, or do you just assume that it is a synonym for "right-wing"?

http://teapartypatriots.ning.com/
The Tea Party movement is in essence based on the principles of fiscal conservatism and as far as I can see is anti-tax, anti-health care reform, and anti-deficit spending.

The officially listed core values are:
- Fiscal Responsibility
- Constitutionally Limited Government
- Free Markets
From: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dhsxmzm7_19fcdzskg5

If you were to compare this with the opening paragraph of Russell Kirk's 1953 book "The Conservative Mind", which currently sits on my bookshelf in the office, it compares reasonably well:
Conservatism in the United States can be roughly defined with the main thoughts of: a belief in God, strong capitalism, anti-communism, American exceptionalism, a strong military, smaller federal government, and lower taxes.

Why do I mention this? The official Core Values of The Tea Party movement lock in quite well with the accepted definition of conservatism.

Fascism broadly speaking is nationalist, corporatist and authoritarian in the extreme. If you were to take a few small steps to the left of the far-right elements of Facism then where do you end up?

The word Fascism carries very strong connotations considering the troubles of last century, but (now I invoke Godwin's Law) both Hitler and Mussolini included elements of capitalism, corporatism, and a very strong sense of exceptionalism. As far as taxation goes, the highest marginal tax rate in Nazi Germany in 1939 was 13.7% and in Italy the corporate tax rate in 1939 was only 10%.

Now compare that with the core values of the Tea Party, and perhaps F1Boat's opinion of it being "quasi fascist", at least on the economic scale is not without merit.

Alexamateo

31st March 2010, 02:00

I think the key part of fascist is "authoritarian" which can be either left or right. Any similarity of corporate or marginal tax rates is purely coincidental. Hitler had limited access freeways too, but that doesn't make them inherently a "Nazi" way of doing things.

Rollo

31st March 2010, 03:09

Obviously.

That is of course why it was qualified with the prefix "quasi" which means "seemingly like but not actually so".

ShiftingGears

31st March 2010, 07:15

The actions or methods are covered by the word "bomber". What they did = "homicide". How they did it = "bomber".

I feel that is a broad term and to me sounds very stupid in a news report, considering news sites would state explicitly if a bombing was accidental.

ArrowsFA1

31st March 2010, 08:36

As this is a thread started to trash Fox news...
I didn't intend to "trash" Fox News, merely question how justified that self-proclaimed tag of "fair & balanced" is. In forum speak I can see how that could be seen as "trashing" but in my viewing experience Fox are far from being fair or balanced. Obviously, how you see their coverage depends on which side of the political divide you sit.

Fascism is a SOCIALIST form of Government. If there is a group in the US that is Fascist it is the Democratic Party.
Fascism is generally considered to be on the far right of the left/right politial divide, whereas socialism is generally seen as on the far left.

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but in the US aren't the Republicans generally seen as being to the right, and the Democrats to the left?

BeansBeansBeans

31st March 2010, 08:47

No- homicide- is used to show that these people have murder as the intent; that the murder dies is not the prime intent or suject, unless the murder's life is more important than those murdered.

It is nothing to do with the importance of the murder, it is to do with differentiating a bomber who kills himself along with his targets or a bomber who doesn't.

F1boat

31st March 2010, 09:47

Spanish Empire was larger than all that you mentioned.

Didn't know that. Thank you!
But about the Dems you are wrong. They look to be as a Social Democrat European party. Other members have very well explained the positions in the political spectrum and why I believe that the tea party is the one which is quasy fascist.

Rollo

31st March 2010, 10:52

Spanish Empire was larger than all that you mentioned.

When? And under which king? What sort of population size are we talking? And what about land area in square miles?

If you can't prove any of this, then the above statement is a lie.

Didn't know that. Thank you!

The reason why you didn't know it is because it's simply not true.

F1boat

31st March 2010, 11:16

When? And under which king? What sort of population size are we talking? And what about land area in square miles?

If you can't prove any of this, then the above statement is a lie.

The reason why you didn't know it is because it's simply not true.

Well, thanks to you then, although I know that Spanish had big Empire, maybe when they destroyed the empires of the Indians in South America. But I ALWAYS thought that the British Empire was the grandest ever, the empire in which the sun is always shining. I think that the Mongols had also a vast empire, but I don't rate it so highly for many reasons. The Roman Empire I respect tremendously and I have a soft spot for Alexander, who is my favorite character in history.

Bob Riebe

31st March 2010, 11:58

It is nothing to do with the importance of the murder, it is to do with differentiating a bomber who kills himself along with his targets or a bomber who doesn't.
This is a free country and if you so wish to believe, so be it.
Happy Easter

Brown, Jon Brow

31st March 2010, 12:26

When? And under which king? What sort of population size are we talking? And what about land area in square miles?

If you can't prove any of this, then the above statement is a lie.

The reason why you didn't know it is because it's simply not true.

You're forgetting that Tony is American. Spain ruled most of the Americas so in his 'universe' Spain had the largest empire.

In the real world though even Russia had a bigger empire than Spain at its greatest extent. The British Empire was over one and a half times bigger than Spains in terms of area and about 8 times larger in population.

chuck34

31st March 2010, 12:42

http://teapartypatriots.ning.com/
The Tea Party movement is in essence based on the principles of fiscal conservatism and as far as I can see is anti-tax, anti-health care reform, and anti-deficit spending.

The officially listed core values are:
- Fiscal Responsibility
- Constitutionally Limited Government
- Free Markets
From: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dhsxmzm7_19fcdzskg5

If you were to compare this with the opening paragraph of Russell Kirk's 1953 book "The Conservative Mind", which currently sits on my bookshelf in the office, it compares reasonably well:
Conservatism in the United States can be roughly defined with the main thoughts of: a belief in God, strong capitalism, anti-communism, American exceptionalism, a strong military, smaller federal government, and lower taxes.

Why do I mention this? The official Core Values of The Tea Party movement lock in quite well with the accepted definition of conservatism.

Fascism broadly speaking is nationalist, corporatist and authoritarian in the extreme. If you were to take a few small steps to the left of the far-right elements of Facism then where do you end up?

The word Fascism carries very strong connotations considering the troubles of last century, but (now I invoke Godwin's Law) both Hitler and Mussolini included elements of capitalism, corporatism, and a very strong sense of exceptionalism. As far as taxation goes, the highest marginal tax rate in Nazi Germany in 1939 was 13.7% and in Italy the corporate tax rate in 1939 was only 10%.

Now compare that with the core values of the Tea Party, and perhaps F1Boat's opinion of it being "quasi fascist", at least on the economic scale is not without merit.

If you only compare tax rates then I suppose you're right, maybe. But we all know his comment was not about tax rates. Facisim overall is not/was not about tax rates. It's a command economy, run by "businessmen" who serve at the pleasure of the government, under rules set by the government. And the government can change the rules at any moment to anything that suites their whims of the moment, and punish those who do not follow their whims. Now what party in the US does that sound like? Certainly NOT the TEA party.

chuck34

31st March 2010, 12:44

Didn't know that. Thank you!
But about the Dems you are wrong. They look to be as a Social Democrat European party. Other members have very well explained the positions in the political spectrum and why I believe that the tea party is the one which is quasy fascist.

So you are saying that the only reason that you called the TEA party "quasy fascist" is because of the tax rate? Or is it because you've been told that the "far right" is fascist? Either way that's a pretty weak argument. Perhaps you could go into a bit more detail on what points of fascism the TEA party has adopted. I'm facinated to find out.

ArrowsFA1

31st March 2010, 13:38

A few definitions may help (or not!!) all from http://www.thefreedictionary.com

Fascism (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fascism) - A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism

Socialism (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism) - Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Marxism (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Marxism) - The political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in which the concept of class struggle plays a central role in understanding society's allegedly inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classless society.

Communism (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/communism) - A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

Capitalism (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/capitalism) - An economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, characterized by the freedom of capitalists to operate or manage their property for profit in competitive conditions.

anthonyvop

31st March 2010, 14:56

Didn't know that. Thank you!
But about the Dems you are wrong. They look to be as a Social Democrat European party.
Which is a Fascist entity.

Other members have very well explained the positions in the political spectrum and why I believe that the tea party is the one which is quasy fascist.

Fascism reject individualism and believes in a singular collective identity
Fascism believes in a centralized Autocratic Government
Fascism believes in state control of major industry.
Fascism believes in cradle to grave entitlements.

In what way is that similar to the Tea Party Movement?

In what way is that not what the Democratic Party is?

ArrowsFA1

31st March 2010, 17:02

Which is a Fascist entity.
Interesting.

In 1988 here in the UK the Social Democratic Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_(UK)), formed by dissatisfied members of the Labour Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)), merged with the Liberal Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_(UK)) to form the Liberal Democrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democrats). Do you consider the Liberal Democrats to be a fascist entity?

Glen Beck (back to Fox News again!!) expressed the view that a term such as 'social justice', which appears in the Liberal Democrat constitution (http://www.libdems.org.uk/constitution.aspx), is "a 'code word' for communism and Nazism".

Here in the UK the Liberal Democrats would not, in any way, been seen as being communist or fascist (see BNP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party)), so I can only assume that there are very different interpretations of these terms in the US.

donKey jote

31st March 2010, 18:09

You're forgetting that Tony is American. Spain ruled most of the Americas so in his 'universe' Spain had the largest empire.

In the real world though even Russia had a bigger empire than Spain at its greatest extent. The British Empire was over one and a half times bigger than Spains in terms of area and about 8 times larger in population.

Spain never "had" India, which would automatically give you your area and population advantage, but at one stage in the 16th century the sun never set on it´s empire (most of Europe, the Americas, and parts of Africa and Asia)... the trick being however, that the kings of Spain weren´t entirely Spanish but Austrian (Habsburgs) :p :
Look up way back then when the Pope split the world in two (on paper): half for the Portuguese and the other half for the Spanish to evangelise ;)
The Phillipines and Cuba (Tony´s homeland) were Spanish until the end of the 19th century.

F1boat

31st March 2010, 18:50

Which is a Fascist entity.

Welcome to my ignore list. After a statement like this, I don't believe that anyone should take you seriously. I am very unhappy that there are such people in the world.

EuroTroll

31st March 2010, 19:38

The F-bomb shouldn't be thrown around so lightly...

anthonyvop

31st March 2010, 19:47

Interesting.

In 1988 here in the UK the Social Democratic Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_(UK)), formed by dissatisfied members of the Labour Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)), merged with the Liberal Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_(UK)) to form the Liberal Democrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democrats). Do you consider the Liberal Democrats to be a fascist entity?
Their core ideals are fascist soooooooooooo......Yep!

Glen Beck (back to Fox News again!!) expressed the view that a term such as 'social justice', which appears in the Liberal Democrat constitution (http://www.libdems.org.uk/constitution.aspx), is "a 'code word' for communism and Nazism".

Here in the UK the Liberal Democrats would not, in any way, been seen as being communist or fascist (see BNP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party)), so I can only assume that there are very different interpretations of these terms in the US.
Of course they don't want to be seen as fascist. Do you?

BTW "Social Justice" is an oxymoron.

anthonyvop

31st March 2010, 19:48

Welcome to my ignore list. After a statement like this, I don't believe that anyone should take you seriously. I am very unhappy that there are such people in the world.

The truth hurts.

Jag_Warrior

31st March 2010, 20:06

Bob Riebe

31st March 2010, 20:42

While it's a noble effort, don't waste your time giving proper definitions here. Doncha know, (some) people here create definitions on the fly? It's not what the word actually means, it's what they want it to mean. :D
Not as good as the OED, but this from Merrim-Webster is probably the best onlne free one.

Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: \ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

ArrowsFA1

31st March 2010, 21:07

chuck34

31st March 2010, 23:22

Fascism (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fascism) - A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism

Great. Let's try to fit those criteria to the TEA party movement.

Centralization of autohority under a dictator: Nope. They adhear to the 10th Amendment, or "State's Rights". No dictator there.

strigent socioeconomic controls: Nope. They want people to have the freedom to spend their money as they see fit, ie less taxes, no mandate to buy insurance, etc.

suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship: Nope. Despite "reports" to the contrary, there is no actual evidence of any censorship of the opposition.

typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism Not Really. Sure most TEA party members believe in the greatness of the USA, but I wouldn't call it "belligerent". And there may be a few racists in the group. But once found, they are pretty much drummed out.

So out of the 4 points, I'll be generous to Boat and say the TEA party movement scores a 0.5. Let's see how the Democrats score, just for fun.

Centralization of autohority under a dictator: Yep. Under the new Health Care Law, the Democrats have siezed control of the Health Insurance Industry (rightfully the mandate of States), mandating that we all MUST buy insurance, and that they will tell us the minimum amount we must buy.

strigent socioeconomic controls: Yep. As said previously, they are mandating what we MUST do simply for living in the US.

suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship: Yep. See ideas such as the "Fairness Doctrine", etc. As well as:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/30/democrats-accused-trying-intimidate-firms-airing-health-care-concerns/
http://www.foundingbloggers.com/wordpress/2010/03/video-the-egg-man-of-searchlight-nevada/
And others

typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism: Perhaps. Does Anti-Semitism count as racism?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001362-503544.html

Again, being generous to Boat, the Dems score a 3.5.

So tell me again, F1boat and his supporters, how is the TEA party movement "quasy fascist"? Seriously, I'd like to know. I've laid out my case in what I think is a clear and logical way. Please do the same for your argument. I truely am facinated to see what you come up with ....

BDunnell

1st April 2010, 00:06

You're forgetting that Tony is American.

I don't think that's possible, is it?

BDunnell

1st April 2010, 00:08

While it's a noble effort, don't waste your time giving proper definitions here. Doncha know, (some) people here create definitions on the fly? It's not what the word actually means, it's what they want it to mean. :D

Never has a truer word been written here.

I might add that there are some who would probably accuse a dictionary of bias and unreliability due to some tenuous connection between its publishers and somebody who might not have owned a gun or voted Republican all their life.

BDunnell

1st April 2010, 00:12

Welcome to my ignore list. After a statement like this, I don't believe that anyone should take you seriously. I am very unhappy that there are such people in the world.

I think we should rejoice at the continued existence of people such as anthonyvop. He brightens my day, at least, though not intentionally. I hope this makes him happy.

Rollo

1st April 2010, 00:14

Great. Let's try to fit those criteria to the TEA party
movement.

Does the definition properly and uniquely apply to fascists in practice?

A few definitions may help (or not!!) all from http://www.thefreedictionary.com

Fascism (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fascism) - A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism

Could the above be equally applied to say the Soviets who were communist?
- government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator - check
- stringent socioeconomic controls - check
- suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship - absolutely
- typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism - most certainly

Are people now suggesting that Soviet Communism and Fascism are congruous or alike? Communism is generally attributed to be far-left and Fascism, far-right. You can't have a far... er... centre can you?

Mark in Oshawa

1st April 2010, 00:20

http://teapartypatriots.ning.com/
The Tea Party movement is in essence based on the principles of fiscal conservatism and as far as I can see is anti-tax, anti-health care reform, and anti-deficit spending.

The officially listed core values are:
- Fiscal Responsibility
- Constitutionally Limited Government
- Free Markets
From: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dhsxmzm7_19fcdzskg5

If you were to compare this with the opening paragraph of Russell Kirk's 1953 book "The Conservative Mind", which currently sits on my bookshelf in the office, it compares reasonably well:
Conservatism in the United States can be roughly defined with the main thoughts of: a belief in God, strong capitalism, anti-communism, American exceptionalism, a strong military, smaller federal government, and lower taxes.

Why do I mention this? The official Core Values of The Tea Party movement lock in quite well with the accepted definition of conservatism.

Fascism broadly speaking is nationalist, corporatist and authoritarian in the extreme. If you were to take a few small steps to the left of the far-right elements of Facism then where do you end up?

The word Fascism carries very strong connotations considering the troubles of last century, but (now I invoke Godwin's Law) both Hitler and Mussolini included elements of capitalism, corporatism, and a very strong sense of exceptionalism. As far as taxation goes, the highest marginal tax rate in Nazi Germany in 1939 was 13.7% and in Italy the corporate tax rate in 1939 was only 10%.

Now compare that with the core values of the Tea Party, and perhaps F1Boat's opinion of it being "quasi fascist", at least on the economic scale is not without merit.

I would argue it is a stretch. I am sure if you put 99% of the Tea Party people in a room, you could debate them all day long in a sensible manner and while you may not agree, you would at least feel you got your points out or you would agree even. Just like a Conservative would in a room full of Left wing citizens. It is the radical weirdo's that go to one end or the other end of the political spectrum that worry me. The Code pink protesters are every bit as worrying as the people who attack Obama on his skin colour. Both are nuts.

The Tea Party people are no more radical than then the people who read the Huffington Post webpage, and likely more tolerant of debate. It is funny, the people branded as radicals usually are done this by the people really bent on radical behaviour. The Tea Party movement is all about keeping US policy on a lot of things consistent with the values written out clearly in the Constitution and having the republic through elections run by a process of law. THAT's it.....

Look, a friend of mine who wouldn't hurt a fly who is a granny who voted Democrat most of her life just joined one. If there is a Nazi salute or something evil there, I am damned sure she will tell me...

BDunnell

1st April 2010, 00:44

It is the radical weirdo's that go to one end or the other end of the political spectrum that worry me.

Very, very true. Perspectives also differ depending on where one lives. Certainly, here in the UK the likes of Sarah Palin and George W. Bush are placed in the 'mad zealot' category by a lot of people from all sides of the political divide — in my opinion, rightly — yet they go down a storm in the USA. It's the same reason why Nick Griffin and the BNP will never command great popular support — they are seen as laughable by most people. This is far more positive than being terrified of them.

anthonyvop

1st April 2010, 03:13

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
And how is that not the Democratic party?

Alexamateo

1st April 2010, 15:33

.........

Are people now suggesting that Soviet Communism and Fascism are congruous or alike? Communism is generally attributed to be far-left and Fascism, far-right. You can't have a far... er... centre can you?

Well, aren't catergorizations of left and right simply attempts by us humans to plot people along an arbitrary graph line? There are some who say fascism is the third leg of the triangle so to speak since elements of left and right are present in it. Maybe a far center is an apt description.

Also, to me, the word "Fascism" is bandied about so much it has lost it's meaning. It's used by proponents on both the left and right as a pejorative against their political opponent whenever they start to lose an argument to deflect and throw them on the defensive.

chuck34

1st April 2010, 17:20

Does the definition properly and uniquely apply to fascists in practice?

Probably not. I'm sure that it applies to all sorts of parties, in practice, as you point out with your comparison to the Communists. I'm not saying that this is any sort of rigid definition.

Could the above be equally applied to say the Soviets who were communist?
- government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator - check
- stringent socioeconomic controls - check
- suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship - absolutely
- typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism - most certainly

Are people now suggesting that Soviet Communism and Fascism are congruous or alike? Communism is generally attributed to be far-left and Fascism, far-right. You can't have a far... er... centre can you?

Actually I would suggest that the differences between Soviet style Communism and Fascism are quite minimal in reality. I have NEVER like the way that fascists are described as far right wing, or for that matter, the comunists being far left wing. As Alexmateo points out, trying to fit all political ideologies onto a straight line is futile. If you look at the policies and actions of the Nazi's and Soviets under Stalin in particular, there really isn't much that you can pick out and hold up as the great difference.

The difference I see between "pure fascism" and "pure communism" would be who owns/runs the factories. Under "pure communism" the State holds all means of production. Under "pure fascism" the means of production are still held by private individuals. However they are tightly controlled by the government.

Perhaps there needs to be a right/left scale with one end being anarchy (let's call that right) and the other end being complete government control (we'll call that left). On that scale I would say that the TEA Party movement is to the right of center, the Democrats are left of center, and the fascists/communists are both far left. But I don't think that's a very good explaination either, but maybe better.

BDunnell

1st April 2010, 18:39

Actually I would suggest that the differences between Soviet style Communism and Fascism are quite minimal in reality. I have NEVER like the way that fascists are described as far right wing, or for that matter, the comunists being far left wing. As Alexmateo points out, trying to fit all political ideologies onto a straight line is futile. If you look at the policies and actions of the Nazi's and Soviets under Stalin in particular, there really isn't much that you can pick out and hold up as the great difference.

You make several good points here. I would add that it is also wrong for those of one political persuasion to make certain assumptions about 'all' members of an opposing faction. For instance, it is entirely erroneous to suggest that left-leaning parties in Western Europe were in any way deficient when it came to fighting Communism during the Cold War because of their political sympathies. In fact, there is good, solid, evidence-based reason (not least in the case of the British Labour Party) for saying that quite the reverse was true. Equally, not all those who vote for right-wing parties are warmongering morons who relish using up the planet's resources 'because we can'.

Whether or not the Tea Party and its ilk — in fact, much of US political debate — encourages a sense of 'buying in' to an entire set of opinions and ways of personal behaviour rather than picking and choosing I'm not sure. From my perspective, it seems like things are going that way.

chuck34

1st April 2010, 19:53

You make several good points here. I would add that it is also wrong for those of one political persuasion to make certain assumptions about 'all' members of an opposing faction. For instance, it is entirely erroneous to suggest that left-leaning parties in Western Europe were in any way deficient when it came to fighting Communism during the Cold War because of their political sympathies. In fact, there is good, solid, evidence-based reason (not least in the case of the British Labour Party) for saying that quite the reverse was true. Equally, not all those who vote for right-wing parties are warmongering morons who relish using up the planet's resources 'because we can'.

I would agree with this whole-heartidly

Whether or not the Tea Party and its ilk — in fact, much of US political debate — encourages a sense of 'buying in' to an entire set of opinions and ways of personal behaviour rather than picking and choosing I'm not sure. From my perspective, it seems like things are going that way.

I'm not clear on what you are trying to say here, can you explain that to me? My mind just isn't working right now I guess.

BDunnell

1st April 2010, 20:22

I'm not clear on what you are trying to say here, can you explain that to me? My mind just isn't working right now I guess.

I did wonder whether I made myself sufficiently clear. This may prove to be a bit of a ramble too! In short, it's the all-out, seemingly uncritical enthusiasm that people have for the Tea Party that worries me. Those who subscribe to the views of a group like the Tea Party seem, more than most members of political parties do in the UK for certain, to subscribe to the set of views it espouses in its entirety. They go in for the whole ideology, such as it is, rather than just bits of it. Now, there are members of political parties I know in Britain who do likewise, but generally with a bit more cynicism than one sees from the members of the Tea Party, who lap up all the rhetoric, seem to have fallen in love with Sarah Palin, and so on. When questioned in more detail about the issues in hand, as seen on various news broadcasts, the Tea Party/Palin acolytes haven't got much of a clue. Ask an enthusiastic paid-up member of a political party about specific issues and they will tend to be able to wax lyrical on that subject — it's a big difference. Of course, this doesn't always hold true, but you get my gist.

chuck34

1st April 2010, 20:53

I did wonder whether I made myself sufficiently clear. This may prove to be a bit of a ramble too! In short, it's the all-out, seemingly uncritical enthusiasm that people have for the Tea Party that worries me. Those who subscribe to the views of a group like the Tea Party seem, more than most members of political parties do in the UK for certain, to subscribe to the set of views it espouses in its entirety. They go in for the whole ideology, such as it is, rather than just bits of it. Now, there are members of political parties I know in Britain who do likewise, but generally with a bit more cynicism than one sees from the members of the Tea Party, who lap up all the rhetoric, seem to have fallen in love with Sarah Palin, and so on. When questioned in more detail about the issues in hand, as seen on various news broadcasts, the Tea Party/Palin acolytes haven't got much of a clue. Ask an enthusiastic paid-up member of a political party about specific issues and they will tend to be able to wax lyrical on that subject — it's a big difference. Of course, this doesn't always hold true, but you get my gist.

I think I understand what you are saying. Here's an issue that I think many are getting hung up on though. The TEA Party is NOT an actual political party (although some have made noises about being more organized along those lines). The TEA Party is more of an advocacy group. And it's not even really a single group. The TEA "Party" is really a grouping of a bunch of individual groups. Last year, about this time, groups in different cities and states begain to hold protests against added taxes and government control. These groups called their protests T.E.A Parties which stood for Taxed Enough Already, and also harkened back to the original Boston Tea Party which also was a tax protest. Most of these groups were independent or had a loose affiliation. Over the past year many of these groups have combined and/or been taken over by larger "national" organizations.

Bottom line is that the TEA Party movement is just that, a movement, not a political party. And since their scope and focus is fairly narrow, focusing on taxes and Federal control, it is easier for their "members" to be in almost total agreement. Whereas an actual political party deals with a broad spectrum of issues, so it is harder to find members who all agree on everything.

BDunnell

1st April 2010, 21:00

Bottom line is that the TEA Party movement is just that, a movement, not a political party. And since their scope and focus is fairly narrow, focusing on taxes and Federal control, it is easier for their "members" to be in almost total agreement. Whereas an actual political party deals with a broad spectrum of issues, so it is harder to find members who all agree on everything.

There are many, many issues tied up in the TEA Party's crusade regarding federal control and 'freedom'-related matters, though, aren't there?

chuck34

1st April 2010, 21:35

There are many, many issues tied up in the TEA Party's crusade regarding federal control and 'freedom'-related matters, though, aren't there?

I'd say that most of the focus is on the HealthCare debate. But there are some other things comming up from time to time. But as I said, there are many different groups with different focuses (foci?). And I'm not involved with any of those groups so I don't really know, but I do know some people who are involved.

Rollo

3rd April 2010, 22:38

How come no-one's done anything about taxation reform?
In some cases you have up to four levels (Federal, State, County and City) all collecting taxes of various kinds, and income tax is levied by at least two sources (Federal & State).

The other question is, has the country as a whole ever paid enough in income taxes? The National Debt which was assumed in 1789 by the Federal Government at $75,000,000 has never been paid off and has continued to grow through several wars and whatnot.
That is also a non-political issue, because both sides (and sides now departed) are all responsible, and the debt collectively has never even looked like it will ever be paid off.

anthonyvop

4th April 2010, 00:42

How come no-one's done anything about taxation reform?
In some cases you have up to four levels (Federal, State, County and City) all collecting taxes of various kinds, and income tax is levied by at least two sources (Federal & State).
Special interest groups, Welfare and entitlement groups block all attempts.

Not all states have income taxes. In Florida most taxes are generated through real estate property taxes.

The other question is, has the country as a whole ever paid enough in income taxes? The National Debt which was assumed in 1789 by the Federal Government at $75,000,000 has never been paid off and has continued to grow through several wars and whatnot.
That is also a non-political issue, because both sides (and sides now departed) are all responsible, and the debt collectively has never even looked like it will ever be paid off.

The question is why do we pay so much in Taxes. When most of our tax dollars go to entitlements and waste. It is hard to justify a increase in Taxes.

The biggest issue is the fact that the top 5% of income earners pay over 60% of all income taxes. That is wrong.
A flat tax is the only fair and just means.

anthonyvop

4th April 2010, 00:44

For those who believe that the Tea Party Movement is made up of those only on the right.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/02/democrats.tea.party/index.html

BDunnell

4th April 2010, 00:46

The question is why do we pay so much in Taxes. When most of our tax dollars go to entitlements and waste.

My, reading your posts really is like having one's own personal think tank.

Rollo

4th April 2010, 04:42

The biggest issue is the fact that the top 5% of income earners pay over 60% of all income taxes. That is wrong.
A flat tax is the only fair and just means.

Yes. The top 5% of income earners pay over 60% of all income taxes.
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

However:
For the year 2007 the top 5% of all people controlled 72.6% of wealth, whilst the bottom 81% controlled a mere 7%.

I agree it is wrong. Obviously the very rich should be contributing more in income taxes. I'm glad you agree.

anthonyvop

4th April 2010, 14:38

However:
For the year 2007 the top 5% of all people controlled 72.6% of wealth, whilst the bottom 81% controlled a mere 7%.
So?

I agree it is wrong. Obviously the very rich should be contributing more in income taxes. I'm glad you agree.

How did you come to that conclusion?
The Rich should pay less in Taxes as they contribute more to society and provide more jobs.

BDunnell

4th April 2010, 14:51

How did you come to that conclusion?
The Rich should pay less in Taxes as they contribute more to society and provide more jobs.

So, would you be in favour of taxing the 'Rich' (whatever you mean by that — and why do you use a capital letter on that word?) at 0 per cent, and the lowest earners at punitive levels?

anthonyvop

4th April 2010, 16:06

So, would you be in favour of taxing the 'Rich' (whatever you mean by that — and why do you use a capital letter on that word?) at 0 per cent, and the lowest earners at punitive levels?

Not at 0%

I advocate a flat tax of 17% on the first $250,000 of income.
Capital Gains at 5%
Eliminate the Death Tax.
This will reduce the Tax code from Volumes to a few pages.

BDunnell

4th April 2010, 16:17

You realize that to purposely misinterpret or misquote what someone says is exactly the same thing as telling a lie?

Firstly, I wasn't misinterpreting what Anthonyvop was saying at all. How did you come up with that from my question? I was only posing a query, and I received a courteous and perfectly reasonable answer. Secondly, your moral compass must be somewhat askew if you view purposely misquoting or misinterpreting someone as being as bad as telling a lie, in my opinion.

anthonyvop

4th April 2010, 16:20

if you view purposely misquoting or misinterpreting someone as being as bad as telling a lie, in my opinion.

It is equal to lie or even worse. It is a lie and then attempting to attribute it to someone else.

BDunnell

4th April 2010, 16:23

It is equal to lie or even worse. It is a lie and then attempting to attribute it to someone else.

Er... no, it isn't. And in any case, as I stated earlier — though I understand that the explanation might have been a bit nuanced for you, as well as lacking unnecessary capital letters — it wasn't what I was doing in asking you that question. I was merely interested in what your response was. As I said, it turned out to be straightforward and perfectly reasonable, not that I necessarily agree with it.

Alfa Fan

4th April 2010, 16:53

The only fair tax is a flat tax where everyone pays exactly the same rate.

Surely that is a normative judgement?

chuck34

4th April 2010, 20:41

Yes. The top 5% of income earners pay over 60% of all income taxes.
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

However:
For the year 2007 the top 5% of all people controlled 72.6% of wealth, whilst the bottom 81% controlled a mere 7%.

I agree it is wrong. Obviously the very rich should be contributing more in income taxes. I'm glad you agree.

Don't you believe in equal rights? Why do you discriminate against one group of people? Shouldn't eveyone be treated equally?

BDunnell

4th April 2010, 20:49

Don't you believe in equal rights? Why do you discriminate against one group of people? Shouldn't eveyone be treated equally?

There is no right or wrong answer as to what constitutes equal rights, though, is there? Some would argue that treating everyone equally would mean that no-one had more money than the next person, as opposed to your view on the matter. It is a difficult balance to strike.

Brown, Jon Brow

4th April 2010, 21:15

I used to believe in flat tax when I was about 14. Then I gained some life experience.

anthonyvop

4th April 2010, 22:00

anthonyvop

4th April 2010, 22:01

I used to believe in flat tax when I was about 14. Then I gained some life experience.

Good have fooled me because it sounds like the answer a 14 year old would give.

There is no justifiable reason to have a graduated income tax except to take more from the more successful.

Brown, Jon Brow

4th April 2010, 22:13

Good have fooled me because it sounds like the answer a 14 year old would give.

There is no justifiable reason to have a graduated income tax except to take more from the more successful.

What about customers for the businesses that earn so much? The majority of customers usually have a 'normal' income. So if you tax them less than the rich the majority of people have more disposable income. So they buy more and the rich get slightly richer.

Rollo

4th April 2010, 22:56

Don't you believe in equal rights? Why do you discriminate against one group of people? Shouldn't eveyone be treated equally?

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Please follow:

If the top 5% of income earners currently pay 60.3% of all income taxes but controlled 72.6% of wealth, then it stands to reason that they are ripping the system by 11.9% or underpaying.

I realise that wealth isn't exactly an indication of income but, people who have wealth are far more likely to invest their wealth for a return* (ie income) than people who are living on a hand to mouth existance.

*and if they ain't then they have taken leave of their senses.

anthonyvop

5th April 2010, 00:02

What about customers for the businesses that earn so much? The majority of customers usually have a 'normal' income. So if you tax them less than the rich the majority of people have more disposable income. So they buy more and the rich get slightly richer.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Are you talking personal income tax or Corporate Tax?

Higher corporate tax is just passed along to the consumer and they pay more.

A higher personal income tax just lowers the amount of discretionary income and in turn hurts business.

Those on the left always scream about fairness....what is more fair than a flat tax?

anthonyvop

5th April 2010, 00:08

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Please follow:

If the top 5% of income earners currently pay 60.3% of all income taxes but controlled 72.6% of wealth, then it stands to reason that they are ripping the system by 11.9% or underpaying.

How did you come to that conclusion?
5% of the population should only have to pay 5% of all income taxes collected. Why should anyone pay more than another? They drive on the same roads. use the same police and fire services.

If anything the rich should pay less as they use much less public services. That is why the flat tax should only apply to the first $250K earned. After that no tax.

The higher income earners tend to invest more which in turn helps drive the economy as oppose to lower income people who tend to use their income for instant gratification.

BDunnell

5th April 2010, 00:27

The higher income earners tend to invest more which in turn helps drive the economy as oppose to lower income people who tend to use their income for instant gratification.

And never the twain shall be allowed to meet?

airshifter

5th April 2010, 01:14

BDunnell

5th April 2010, 01:24

So your argument is that people get wealthier by paying more in taxes? :laugh:

Traditionally, people in the higher-taxed mainland European countries haven't done too badly for themselves.

anthonyvop

5th April 2010, 04:19

Traditionally, people in the higher-taxed mainland European countries haven't done too badly for themselves.

Then explain why most of the wealthy in higher taxed Euro countries run to Tax havens.
this is a motorsports forum. How many F1 drivers have abandoned their native lands for places like Monaco, Switzerland and certain Gulf states?

What was the first thing Lewis Hamilton do when he signed with McLaren?

Roamy

5th April 2010, 05:19

Traditionally, people in the higher-taxed mainland European countries haven't done too badly for themselves.

Well first of all I will admit I don't know sh!t about Euro taxes but are you telling me the rich are paying 60% and liking it?? Also you guys have had 2000 plus years to accumulate wealth - we are a bit behind

Rollo

5th April 2010, 08:05

And never the twain shall be allowed to meet?

No of course not.

In a market economy, the larger an investment is, the higher its rate of return. Therefore naturally, wealth will gravitate to those who over an extended period of time, to those who already have wealth.

Also, if you those control larger amounts of capital within society you are able to participate more directly in shaping government policy (and more likely in ways which maximize your wealth).

Thus Mr Vop supports the further stratification of society and by inference the erosion of democracy.

Lousada

5th April 2010, 12:00

Not at 0%

I advocate a flat tax of 17% on the first $250,000 of income.
Capital Gains at 5%
Eliminate the Death Tax.
This will reduce the Tax code from Volumes to a few pages.

What you are advocating is not a flattax, it's a degressive tax.
Also, the tax code is not volumes because there are different taxbrackets...

chuck34

5th April 2010, 12:49

There is no right or wrong answer as to what constitutes equal rights, though, is there? Some would argue that treating everyone equally would mean that no-one had more money than the next person, as opposed to your view on the matter. It is a difficult balance to strike.

What you are proposing there is the typical "trap" liberal types try to spring on the conservative types. But you are using false logic (I'm not really trying to slam you, it is what it is). You are not proposing equal rights or equal opportunity. What you are proposing is FORCED equal results. Just because someone does not take full advantage of their rights and opportunities does NOT mean that those rights and opportunities did not exist.

Rollo

5th April 2010, 12:53

Just because someone does not take full advantage of their rights and opportunities does NOT mean that those rights and opportunities did not exist.

You perhaps had the same rights and opportunities as... Lachlan Murdoch?

chuck34

5th April 2010, 13:08

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Please follow:

If the top 5% of income earners currently pay 60.3% of all income taxes but controlled 72.6% of wealth, then it stands to reason that they are ripping the system by 11.9% or underpaying.

I realise that wealth isn't exactly an indication of income but, people who have wealth are far more likely to invest their wealth for a return* (ie income) than people who are living on a hand to mouth existance.

*and if they ain't then they have taken leave of their senses.

Another bit of false logic. The people who are living on a hand to mouth existance are not paying ANY taxes (on income anyway).

chuck34

5th April 2010, 13:18

You perhaps had the same rights and opportunities as... Lachlan Murdoch?

Actually yes I do have the same rights and opportunities that he has. Just because his daddy is rich doesn't change what he can and can not do. He went to Princeton University. Had I wanted to go to Princeton, I could have. I just would have had to work long hard hours to get pay for it. He's sat of the board of many of his father's papers, etc. I could do that as well, I would just have to work hard to get there. There's nothing stopping me.

Sure, in order for me to do the things that Murdoch has done, I'd have to work longer hours, and much harder. But then I'd say I'd probably be much more of a success at it, perhaps more like his father Rupert, or maybe even his grandfather Sir Keith Murdoch.

Just because things aren't handed to you doesn't mean that you can't get them. Quite being the victim, go out and get what you want. If there is something physically stopping you, other than your desire not to work for it, then come back and talk to me about being denied "equal rights".

chuck34

5th April 2010, 13:22

Also, if you those control larger amounts of capital within society you are able to participate more directly in shaping government policy (and more likely in ways which maximize your wealth).

That is why I (and I would presume anthony) am for less government interference. If the government would get out of the way, quit errecting barriers to entering industry, we'd have a whole lot more, and better ways of doing things.

As an example when was the last successful car company started?

Alexamateo

5th April 2010, 13:55

Another bit of false logic. The people who are living on a hand to mouth existance are not paying ANY taxes (on income anyway).

This is not quite true because social security and Medicare taxes are 7.65% in the first dollar of income. This $ amount is matched by the employer so for self-employed people like me it is 15.3%. This tax is eliminated after $106,000 is earned.

I am conservative on most issues, but I don't see the attraction to a flat tax rate. As you can see everybody (that works) is paying something and the rates increase as income goes up but only on $$ earned after the threshold is reached. As a system, that is very fair.

BDunnell

5th April 2010, 14:00

Then explain why most of the wealthy in higher taxed Euro countries run to Tax havens.
this is a motorsports forum. How many F1 drivers have abandoned their native lands for places like Monaco, Switzerland and certain Gulf states?

What was the first thing Lewis Hamilton do when he signed with McLaren?

I'm not talking about the absurdly high earners, but those on more 'average' levels of income. The Scandinavian countries are a good example of highly-taxed nations that have long performed well economically.

BDunnell

5th April 2010, 14:03

What you are proposing there is the typical "trap" liberal types try to spring on the conservative types. But you are using false logic (I'm not really trying to slam you, it is what it is). You are not proposing equal rights or equal opportunity. What you are proposing is FORCED equal results. Just because someone does not take full advantage of their rights and opportunities does NOT mean that those rights and opportunities did not exist.

Who said anything about 'forced'? Therefore, I resent the notion that I was merely trying to force you into a 'trap', while the idea that conservative types enjoy some sort of superiority in such discussions is really quite offensive.

chuck34

5th April 2010, 14:17

This is not quite true because social security and Medicare taxes are 7.65% in the first dollar of income. This $ amount is matched by the employer so for self-employed people like me it is 15.3%. This tax is eliminated after $106,000 is earned.

I am conservative on most issues, but I don't see the attraction to a flat tax rate. As you can see everybody (that works) is paying something and the rates increase as income goes up but only on $$ earned after the threshold is reached. As a system, that is very fair.

Yes, but most who earn little will get that money back through earned income tax credits etc. It is a fact that in the US barely 50% of the people actually pay any income taxes.

Alexamateo

5th April 2010, 14:21

That is why I (and I would presume anthony) am for less government interference. If the government would get out of the way, quit errecting barriers to entering industry, we'd have a whole lot more, and better ways of doing things.

......

You know who's the worst? State Cosmetology Boards! Heaven forbid one's recent immigrant wife start earning income by cutting hair for other immigrants in their house without first paying due homage to said board and their schools. Consumers must be protected lest anyone receive a bad haircut. :p : Not that I would know anything about that of course. :D

chuck34

5th April 2010, 14:21

Who said anything about 'forced'? Therefore, I resent the notion that I was merely trying to force you into a 'trap', while the idea that conservative types enjoy some sort of superiority in such discussions is really quite offensive.

I honestly am not trying to offend you, and said so in my post.

You said, " no-one had more money than the next person". The only way to do that is by forcefully confiscating money from those who currently possess it, and distributing it to thoes who do not. That's reality. If it is reality that is offending you, then I am truely sorry for you.

BDunnell

5th April 2010, 18:05

I honestly am not trying to offend you, and said so in my post.

You said, " no-one had more money than the next person". The only way to do that is by forcefully confiscating money from those who currently possess it, and distributing it to thoes who do not. That's reality. If it is reality that is offending you, then I am truely sorry for you.

It is not the only way to do that. People could, if we're being hypothetical, decide to do it of their own free will.

Brown, Jon Brow

5th April 2010, 18:46

I really like the banner ad that is on my page. Vince Cable telling me that I wont pay any tax on the first £10,000 I earn. Very attractive for a student with a part time job.

chuck34

5th April 2010, 20:03

It is not the only way to do that. People could, if we're being hypothetical, decide to do it of their own free will.

But you and I both know that they will not. The one thing that people on the left and right, conservatives and liberals alike, white, black, whatever can all agree on is that ... Rich people are generally (with a few great exceptions) greedy b@stards who do not want to give up one penny of their money. So there will always be those which you must force to give up their money in order to achieve your utopia.

Alexamateo

5th April 2010, 20:20

But you and I both know that they will not. The one thing that people on the left and right, conservatives and liberals alike, white, black, whatever can all agree on is that ... Rich people are generally (with a few great exceptions) greedy b@stards who do not want to give up one penny of their money. So there will always be those which you must force to give up their money in order to achieve your utopia.

I've always worked in Landscape Architecture and Construction for a high-end clientèle, and this is not my experience at all. They may be careful, they may be demanding, but in general they are fair and not greedy. If I have encountered greedy, miserly people at all, they generally don't have any money. They may want you to think they do, but they really don't.

Eki

5th April 2010, 20:33

There was a study that concluded that money only brings happiness when you make more money than your neighbor. There might be some truth to that.

chuck34

5th April 2010, 21:32

I've always worked in Landscape Architecture and Construction for a high-end clientèle, and this is not my experience at all. They may be careful, they may be demanding, but in general they are fair and not greedy. If I have encountered greedy, miserly people at all, they generally don't have any money. They may want you to think they do, but they really don't.

Yeah, greedy may be the wrong word. I like your word "careful", or maybe "stingy". I do realize that the rich give VERY generously to charities, a fact many would like to ignore. But to expect them to give up their money to someone who just wants it is not going to happen.

Rollo

5th April 2010, 21:32

Yes, but most who earn little will get that money back through earned income tax credits etc. It is a fact that in the US barely 50% of the people actually pay any income taxes.

For 2007 the bottom 50% of the population earnt only 13% of all income. Would you expect them to pay 50% of all taxes? That seems to be what you are suggesting.

That is why I (and I would presume anthony) am for less government interference. If the government would get out of the way, quit errecting barriers to entering industry, we'd have a whole lot more, and better ways of doing things.

As an example when was the last successful car company started?

Good example; yet hideously flawed.
Also, why are 80% of all recorded music royalties collected by only four music companies? Why are 90% of film revenues collected by only six film companies? Why are there only four major telephone companies?

How much of that is to do with monopolistic competition from the existing motor manufacturers, existing economies of scale, and the massive levels of investment required to start anything larger than a cottage industry.

Besides which, who created the government interference anyway? Wouldn't the existing players in the market lobby governments if they could or even better fund research groups or other government think tanks to influence the decisions they make?

chuck34

5th April 2010, 21:34

You do know why communism failed, don't you? On paper it's a very reasonable system. It failed because a large percentage of people, in ANY society, will always do what is best for them personally.

That's probably a better way of saying what I was trying to say. :-)

chuck34

5th April 2010, 21:39

For 2007 the bottom 50% of the population earnt only 13% of all income. Would you expect them to pay 50% of all taxes? That seems to be what you are suggesting.

That's not what I'm saying at all. Basically the opposite actually. Some here would say that the bottom 50% should pay 13% of taxes, and if so they're WAAAAAAY underpaying. I want a "fair-er" tax. Eliminate most exemptions. And have a flatter, but still slightly progressive, tax.

Good example; yet hideously flawed.
Also, why are 80% of all recorded music royalties collected by only four music companies? Why are 90% of film revenues collected by only six film companies? Why are there only four major telephone companies?

Go start a music or film company and let me know how many government regulations you run into that you have to spend money getting around.

How much of that is to do with monopolistic competition from the existing motor manufacturers, existing economies of scale, and the massive levels of investment required to start anything larger than a cottage industry.

You are right there are other barriers to start-up firms than gov. regs. But why put up more blocks than needed?

Besides which, who created the government interference anyway? Wouldn't the existing players in the market lobby governments if they could or even better fund research groups or other government think tanks to influence the decisions they make?

The existing firms lobby their Congresscritters so that they can protect their own investments.

BDunnell

5th April 2010, 21:43

Yeah, greedy may be the wrong word. I like your word "careful", or maybe "stingy". I do realize that the rich give VERY generously to charities, a fact many would like to ignore. But to expect them to give up their money to someone who just wants it is not going to happen.

This is true, of course. But so is the fact that many would like to ignore the fact that the motivation behind rich people donating so generously to charity might not always be the most altruistic.

Eki

5th April 2010, 21:44

Yeah, greedy may be the wrong word. I like your word "careful", or maybe "stingy". I do realize that the rich give VERY generously to charities, a fact many would like to ignore. But to expect them to give up their money to someone who just wants it is not going to happen.
Yes, they want recognition for their "goodness" or "excellence" like an institution or a fund named after them. Paying taxes anonymously for the same reason doesn't boost their egos the same way.

BDunnell

5th April 2010, 22:05

Yes, they want recognition for their "goodness" or "excellence" like an institution or a fund named after them. Paying taxes anonymously for the same reason doesn't boost their egos the same way.

It must also be stated that there a good many major donors to charitable organisations who do genuinely remain entirely anonymous.

Mark in Oshawa

5th April 2010, 23:28

It must also be stated that there a good many major donors to charitable organisations who do genuinely remain entirely anonymous.

Those are often surprising too....if the public only knew.

chuck34

6th April 2010, 12:35

It must also be stated that there a good many major donors to charitable organisations who do genuinely remain entirely anonymous.

I am not disputing that. Clearly you are correct. However, that is far from being the case for 100% of "the rich". So we're back to how are you going to equalize results without using force?

Mark in Oshawa

6th April 2010, 23:09

Yes, they want recognition for their "goodness" or "excellence" like an institution or a fund named after them. Paying taxes anonymously for the same reason doesn't boost their egos the same way.

Paying taxes is the law, giving money freely is a social and moral obligation. It is better to recognize people for giving money they don't have to, then putting the "gun" to their head and just taking it.

anthonyvop

7th April 2010, 18:24

giving money freely is a social and moral obligation.
No it is not. If it is an obligation than it is not given "freely"

Mark in Oshawa

8th April 2010, 00:22

No it is not. If it is an obligation than it is not given "freely"

IF you feel it is MORAL to give to charity, it is a MORAL obligation. Geeze, even when I am on your side on things, you will sit there and split hairs...

Rollo

8th April 2010, 01:14

Paying taxes is the law, giving money freely is a social and moral obligation.

Paying taxes is a social and moral obligation as part of living in an organised society; it's part of the implicit "social contract".
Living according to the laws of the land is also part of this, which is reinforced in a democracy by virtue of the fact that we vote for the people who make the laws.

Everybody has a moral obligation to obey the law.

Roamy

8th April 2010, 01:35

anthonyvop

8th April 2010, 04:45

Paying taxes is a social and moral obligation as part of living in an organised society; it's part of the implicit "social contract".

I reject the notion of moral obligation. What is moral for you might be reprehensible for another.
The word obligation means:The act of binding oneself by a social, legal, or moral tie. Basically a obligation has to be agreed upon by all parties. If not then it becomes a command.
There is no social or moral obligation to pay taxes either. it is a legal obligation under threat of force.

Everybody has a moral obligation to obey the law.
No. We have a legal obligation to obey the law. You can chose to obey it or not. That is where morality kicks in. If you consider a law unjust what obligation do you follow? The legal or your moral?

Mark in Oshawa

8th April 2010, 05:21

Paying taxes is a social and moral obligation as part of living in an organised society; it's part of the implicit "social contract".
Living according to the laws of the land is also part of this, which is reinforced in a democracy by virtue of the fact that we vote for the people who make the laws.

Everybody has a moral obligation to obey the law.

If you follow THAT line of thought, then I guess the guards at Treblinka and Auschwitz were just morally bound to carry out their orders? How about those industrialists who supported Hitler in getting elected? Or on another take, where is it the moral imperative for people to follow all laws blindly to the point of immorality in any nation?

Is paying taxes a moral imperative? No...I don't believe so. It is a social obligation as part of society, but you are not morally bound to pay taxes. You are legally bound to. Splitting hairs? You are the lawyer Rollo, so I am sure you will disagree.

I will just say that it is one thing to pay taxes to the state, but if one gives beyond the point of the tax bill to things one WANTS to donate to because he/she feels this is right for his moral code or it is something he truly believes in, THAT is a totally different step up from just paying taxes.

It has to be noted, at least in the US, that is has been pointed out more than just once that conservatives TEND to give more to charity. I remember that little nugget being pointed out when Dubya and Gore released their tax returns to the press in their election. Dubya out donated to charity by a 5 to 1 margin over Gore despite actually making less. At least, that was the report at the time. I am sure there are some who will just REFUSE to believe that, but the point is there is tons of media reports almost every year about how conservative groups or citizens tend to give more to charities. Sure, they may have a religious or moral code they have to meet to get the money, but the fact remains, the people who seem most content with paying more tax tend to want the government to do everything and THIS just doesn't work IMO.

donKey jote

12th April 2010, 19:20

watch this (http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-march-18-2010-gary-locke) for a fair and balanced view of Glenn Beck´s "Fusion of Entertainment and Enlightenment" :p :laugh:

BDunnell

12th April 2010, 19:52

No. We have a legal obligation to obey the law. You can chose to obey it or not. That is where morality kicks in. If you consider a law unjust what obligation do you follow? The legal or your moral?

A very well-put point indeed, unbelievably.

Daniel

12th April 2010, 20:33

A very well-put point indeed, unbelievably.
Ditto, screw the law if it's unjust. Are those protestors in Thailand doing the wrong thing in standing up against the govt?

Tomi

12th April 2010, 21:02

Ditto, screw the law if it's unjust. Are those protestors in Thailand doing the wrong thing in standing up against the govt?

Lol, they are paid protesters, by the ex. pm.

Daniel

12th April 2010, 21:10

Bad example maybe? :p

Mark in Oshawa

12th April 2010, 21:59

Ditto, screw the law if it's unjust. Are those protestors in Thailand doing the wrong thing in standing up against the govt?

Screw the law if it is unjust? AT what point do you have anarchy? You are right, there are bad laws, but that is what democracy is also about. You vote out idiots who bring you stupidity in terms of the legal system. The problem is, the populace really is out to lunch at punishing stupid politicans.

BDunnell

12th April 2010, 22:41

Ditto, screw the law if it's unjust. Are those protestors in Thailand doing the wrong thing in standing up against the govt?

Nelson Mandela — one man's terrorist, another man's freedom fighter. I could go on.

But what an irony that the individual whose post I praised sees most things in black and white rather than shades of grey, which is what made his comments so atypical.

BDunnell

12th April 2010, 22:42

Screw the law if it is unjust? AT what point do you have anarchy? You are right, there are bad laws, but that is what democracy is also about. You vote out idiots who bring you stupidity in terms of the legal system. The problem is, the populace really is out to lunch at punishing stupid politicans.

Generally, though, people in what one might term civilised countries aren't given to anarchy, and if some people are for brief periods then they tend to calm down in the end.

Mark in Oshawa

12th April 2010, 22:47

Nelson Mandela — one man's terrorist, another man's freedom fighter. I could go on.

But what an irony that the individual whose post I praised sees most things in black and white rather than shades of grey, which is what made his comments so atypical.

Mandela, a man who opposed an unjust law, but to be sure, he paid the price and was jailed for it. By being subject to the system, no matter how unjust; he actually in the end cemented his reputation as a man of intergrity. Like Muhammed Ali went to jail rather than be called up in the draft to be in the US Army. Both Mandela and Ali went to prison for protesting what they considered unjust. They took the consequences of their act. What bothers me about many anarchy types is they have no respect for any law but their own and THAT is the major difference. Mandela and Ali both submitted their freedom to make the point that the law was wrong. In a sense, they respect the law, just not THAT law (the unjust one's of Apartheid in Mandela's example, or the draft in the US for Ali.)

I think both men are more famous because they did this in this manner.

Tony is a very black and white guy, but occasionally finds some Gray Ben. Just like you and I almost disagree on a lot of subjects and yet find common ground on others. Even a blind squirrel finds a few nuts I guess.

anthonyvop

12th April 2010, 23:23

Nelson Mandela — one man's terrorist, another man's freedom fighter. I could go on.

But what an irony that the individual whose post I praised sees most things in black and white rather than shades of grey, which is what made his comments so atypical.

That is because the world is Black and white. Life is absolute. You are born, you live, you die.
If you look hard enough all questions are answered. the problem is that people tend to be either too lazy, too jealous or too scared to look.

BDunnell

12th April 2010, 23:35

That is because the world is Black and white.

The very comment of yours that I praised demonstrates why it is not.

gloomyDAY

13th April 2010, 00:38

That is because the world is Black and white. Life is absolute. You are born, you live, you die.
If you look hard enough all questions are answered. the problem is that people tend to be either too lazy, too jealous or too scared to look.Every time I read statements from you, especially the one I am quoting, I think of a narcissistic man with a cocaine addiction. I feel sorry for your wife, if you have one.

I just went to the Fox News site and wasn't sure if they were actually trying to divulge news or gossip. Felt like I had clicked on the National Enquirer. I don't mind the fact that someone can give you an opposing opinion on any matter, then have a discussion. The problem I have with Fox is that they never has discussions. Just one-sided yelling and rage towards the opposition, which makes me change the channel.

Mark in Oshawa

13th April 2010, 04:50

Every time I read statements from you, especially the one I am quoting, I think of a narcissistic man with a cocaine addiction. I feel sorry for your wife, if you have one.

I just went to the Fox News site and wasn't sure if they were actually trying to divulge news or gossip. Felt like I had clicked on the National Enquirer. I don't mind the fact that someone can give you an opposing opinion on any matter, then have a discussion. The problem I have with Fox is that they never has discussions. Just one-sided yelling and rage towards the opposition, which makes me change the channel.

Gloomy I guess that is why you haven't been paying any attention to Fox. Watch Brit Hume's panels. Left and right, no rage..

Bill O'Reilly does a bit of it, but he always has guys like Alan Colmes on who is about as far left as they come. Not to mention Juan Williams and other people who Bill disagrees with. On occasion, the conversation can be civil. Other days no....but his show is about the entertainment anyhow. He doesn't care if you hate him, just keep watching, and many do.

As for the Enquirer, they will likely win a Pulitzer ( not a joke, apparently they are in consideration) for their expose of the campaign fund misuse that John Edwards is under investigation for. (keeping a mistress isn't a campaign worthy contribution..who knew?)

So why Fox leans right, on CNN or especially MSNBC, there is no right of center people hardly anymore and if they are on there, they are either kooks or just people to be abused. You cannot tell me after watching someone like a Keith Olbermann that you can say Fox has a monopoly of bias in the media....

Bob Riebe

13th April 2010, 05:02

The problem I have with Fox is that they never has discussions. Just one-sided yelling and rage towards the opposition, which makes me change the channel.
You prefer the DNC Mutual Admiration Society News that CNN and MSNBC pretend to pass off as fair or anything even resembling honest?

I imagine that would put you amongst the lemmings that just like to herd together.

anthonyvop

13th April 2010, 05:09

Every time I read statements from you, especially the one I am quoting, I think of a narcissistic man with a cocaine addiction. I feel sorry for your wife, if you have one.

Aside from personal insults do you have anything to disprove my statement?

anthonyvop

13th April 2010, 05:10

The very comment of yours that I praised demonstrates why it is not.
Actually it proves my statement.
You just refused to see it for one of the 3 reasons.

gloomyDAY

13th April 2010, 07:50

Gloomy I guess that is why you haven't been paying any attention to Fox. Watch Brit Hume's panels. Left and right, no rage..No, I haven't seen this lady. I really don't watch that much television and stay the away from TV news networks like the plague. I usually read my news online through the Associated Press/Reuters and draw my conclusions from there. I just think that in order to come to a sensible conclusion that you need to leave your emotions at the door.

You prefer the DNC Mutual Admiration Society News that CNN and MSNBC pretend to pass off as fair or anything even resembling honest?

I imagine that would put you amongst the lemmings that just like to herd together.No, I don't like those news networks either. I work at a bank and they can only have CNN on the televisions for advertisement reasons. I grow tired of their news productions on a regular basis.

Aside from personal insults do you have anything to disprove my statement?I thought you were made of tougher skin. I'll be more sensitive to your needs Tony because I'd hate to ruffle your feathers.

Disprove your statement? Yes, I disagree with it, which would make your assumption...null.

Actually it proves my statement.
You just refused to see it for one of the 3 reasons. :laugh: You read that Ben? I guess you're a lazy, green-eyed, scared kitty.