Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

The message spreading far and wide (at last)


RudyH

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply
This forum had a decidedly Liberal lean when I "left" in October.

 

People are waking up with a hangover' date=' the conservatives are finally speaking up.

True here as well as every other forum I frequent covering a broad range of interests.[/quote'] Oh frickin A. Now the Gibson forum is part of the "liberal media"? People doesnt this all sound a little tiny bit like Boogie Man Syndrome? Seriously?! :-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To hear the persecuted right wingers all media is leftist, except for Fox "News" and the cable/radio loudmouths. They don't get that "mainsteam" media is just that: mainstream. The networks, the NPR and PBS outlets, Time-Life, Economist, NY Times, Wash Post, and everyone to the left of Sean Hannity is out to get the Moral Right. Just like everyone in power is out to destroy Christianity, family values, self reliance, blah, blah. Now when government spending is vital, given the shape the Republicans have left us in, we hear about record deficits. Where have the tight spending advocates been for the last ten years?

 

Better in Rush Limbaugh's twisted mind to bring down an honest (yeah, I know, not honest to the genius's that got us here) attempt to straighten out the mess than offer any support for a program that is least bad of the options: do more of the same, do nothing, do something, even if it's wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have the time, take a look at some of this stuff. After you've read, see if you still believe that there is no bias in the media...

 

For some background and some general reference (it's wikipedia, but it's well footnoted and referenced):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States

 

Liberal bias in the media is commonly thought to be the result of liberal principles and ideas influencing the coverage or selection of news stories.

 

Conservative critics of the media say this bias exists within a wide variety of media channels including network news shows of CBS, ABC, and NBC, cable channels CNN and MSNBC, as well as major newspapers, news-wires, and radio outlets, especially CBS News, Newsweek, and the New York Times.[12] The academic study cited most frequently by critics of a "liberal media bias" in American journalism is The Media Elite, a 1986 book co-authored by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter.[13] They surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the broadcast networks. The survey found that most of these journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics, including such hot-button social issues as abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights. Then they compared journalists' attitudes to their coverage of controversial issues such as the safety of nuclear power, school busing to promote racial integration, and the energy crisis of the 1970s.

 

The authors concluded that journalists' coverage of controversial issues reflected their own attitudes, and the predominance of political liberals in newsrooms therefore pushed news coverage in a liberal direction. They presented this tilt as a mostly unconscious process of like-minded individuals projecting their shared assumptions onto their interpretations of reality. In principle this meant that newsrooms populated mainly by conservatives would produce a similarly skewed perspective toward the political right. Such accusations have been leveled against Fox News. At the time the study was embraced mainly by conservative columnists and politicians, who adopted the findings as scientific proof of liberal media bias.

 

ABC News political director Mark Halperin stated that as individuals most journalists, and news producers, hold liberal political views, and that these views affect their reporting.[14] In a survey conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1997, 61% of reporters stated that they were members of or shared the beliefs of the Democratic Party. Only 15% say their beliefs were best represented by the Republican Party.[15] This leaves 24% undecided or Independent.

 

A 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers of Dartmouth College, Press Bias and Politics, investigated the issue of media bias. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers, including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle, Kuypers found that the mainstream press in America tends to favor liberal viewpoints.[16] They found that reporters expressing moderate or conservative points of view were often labeled as holding a minority point of view.[16] Kuypers said he found liberal bias in reporting a variety of issues including race, welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control.[16]

 

Studies finding liberal bias in the media are not limited to studies of print media. A joint study by the Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University and the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that liberal media bias can be found in television news by networks such as CNN.[17] These findings concerning liberal bias in television news – particularly at CNN[18] – are echoed throughout the academic literature.

 

In 2008 George W. Bush's press secretary Scott McClellan published a book in which he confessed to regularly and routinely lying to the media, and describes the contempt he felt for reporters who reported his lies instead of telling the truth, because they were cowed by the fear of an accusation of "liberal bias".[19]

 

 

 

According to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a Democratic candidate like John Edwards has been falsely maligned and has not been given coverage commensurate with his standing in presidential campaign coverage because his message questions corporate power.[39]

 

A poll of likely 2008 United States presidential election voters released on March 14, 2007 by Zogby International reports that 83 percent of those surveyed believe that there is a bias in the media, with 64 percent of respondents of the opinion that this bias favors liberals and 28 percent of respondents believing that this bias is conservative.[40] In August of 2008 the Washington Post ombudsman wrote that the Post had published almost three times as many page 1 stories about Barack Obama than it had about John McCain since Obama won the Democratic party nomination that June.[41] In September of 2008 a Rasmussen poll found that 68 percent of voters believe that "most reporters try to help the candidate they want to win." Forty-nine (49) percent of respondents stated that the reporters are helping Barack Obama to get elected, while only 14 percent said the same regarding John McCain. A further 51 percent said that the press was actively "trying to hurt" Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin with negative coverage.[42] In October 2008, The Washington Post media correspondent Howard Kurtz reported that Sarah Palin was again on the cover of Newsweek, "but with the most biased campaign headline I've ever seen."[43]

 

After the election was over, the Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell reviewed the Post's coverage and concluded that it was tilted in favor of Obama.[44] "The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts." Over the course of the campaign, the Post printed 594 "issues stories" and 1,295 "horse-race stories." There were more positive opinion pieces on Obama than McCain (32 to 13) and more negative pieces about McCain than Obama (58 to 32). Overall, more news stories were dedicated to Obama than McCain. Howell said that the results of her survey were comparable to those reported by the Project for Excellence in Journalism for the national media. (That report, issued on October 22, 2008, found that "coverage of McCain has been heavily unfavorable," with 57% of the stories issued after the conventions being negative and only 14% being positive. For the same period, 36% of the stories on Obama were positive, 35% were neutral or mixed, and 29% were negative.[45][46]) While rating the Post's biographical stories as generally quite good, she concluded that "Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager."[44]

 

Various critics, particularly Hudson, have shown concern at the link between the news media reporting and what they see as the trivialised nature of American elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$250k taxable income

$65' date='273.40 in federal taxes

 

So, under Obama's proposed plan, only folks making over $250k will pay more taxes? Is congress going to rewrite the entire tax code and change the tax brackets so that the "rich bracket" starts at $250k instead of $195k? Under Obama's plan the "rich" will pay more while everyone else gets to keep their tax breaks? That sounds fair to you? Obama proposes to raise the tax rate on the "rich" and also to take away our tax breaks on charitable giving and on our mortgage interest deduction. So under our new Obamanation, I will be effectively paying more than 50% OF MY INCOME TO THE GOVERNMENT (when you factor in Medicaire, payroll and ss taxes) so that the libs can redistribute my wealth to everybody else. If you live in a state like Cali or NY or other states where you have a State Income Tax, there goes another 8%-13% or more of your earnings to the government. This all sounds fair to you? [/quote']

 

Again, you gloss over the specifics when it comes to particular numbers. I see a $4k raise in taxes in the 250k+ tax bracket, given your information. No other raises, according to Obama. So my question is, who is making over 250k a year and is thinking "Man, a 4 thousand dollar tax raise to cure cancer, send kids to college, and lay down necessary infrastructure for a modern and lasting America? **** THAT SUCKS"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Again' date=' you gloss over the specifics when it comes to particular numbers. I see a $4k raise in taxes in the 250k+ tax bracket, given your information.

 

No other raises, according to Obama. - [b']Read the proposed budget, or read several news sites to get the jist of it. The plan is to not only incease the top tax rate, but also to reduce the federal income tax deductions for folks in the higest tax bracket. Those deductions are different for ever American.[/b]

 

So my question is, who is making over 250k a year and is thinking:

 

Man, a 4 thousand dollar tax raise to cure cancer - I'm all for curing cancer, but not via income taxes.

 

send kids to college, I'd like to be able to send mine to college and I'd like to be able to provide for them first, you mind?

 

and lay down necessary infrastructure for a modern and lasting America? - Less than 1/3 of the proposed spending goes into infrastructure spending. I prefer states to build their own roads using the tax dollars of the people that use the infrastructure. I don't want to pay my tax dollars to be used as pork for some politician in another state. The Federal gov't has been taxing us for infrastructure for over 50 years now, within the past 20 years congress has deferred spending highway/transportation dollars and used the money for other purposes. Governments at all levels, in both parties have mismanaged the spending on in the U.S infrastructure for years and I'm not happy about giving more of my money to the same bunch of politicians that mismanaged the last money I sent them. I'm all for upgrading and fixing America's infrastructure in a smart way, with debate, planning and voting on where to best spend the money.

 

The point of my previous post was to show how MUCH more the top earners are paying than anybody else. After all the taxing is done on me, I'll probably be paying over 50% of earnings directly to the government. Is that fair?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. If not via taxes, then via what means should the government take upon the responsibility of medical research funding?

2. If you are making 250k+ a year and can't afford to pay your taxes and send your kids to school, well then I think you are doing something incredibly wrong with your books.

3. Infrastructure needs to be put down across the nation, for national use. Clean energy power grids, broadband lines, and the salaries for the workers to put them down. The whole nation needs them, why put it in the hands of the state to decide when to put aside the money to build them? This is just the federal government saying "Hey guys, this needs to be done, and needs to be done soon. So we're going to do it." From what I read, you're basically accusing a brand new administration of "business as usual" (in so far as it applies to how money is handled for infrastructure development) despite the massively huge attempt at transparent government and action oriented politics that Obama and his cabinet have been pushing.

 

Finally, you keep asking if the tax increases are fair. How about this. The average salary for a teacher teaching in a school in a "inner city" position gets paid $25,000 a year. This teacher goes to work everyday facing the prospect of gang violence, racism, apathetic students, and ill-equipped classrooms. Is it fair that, after receiving a college degree (sometimes even a masters degree), that these people make 1/10 of what the targets of the tax increases do? Or is it fair that the student with a 4.3 GPA graduates from a middle class high school can't afford college, but the kid who's daddy is a partner at a law firm can afford to send him off to a nationally ranked school where he maintains a solid 1.2 GPA for 7 years before dropping out and joining the Peace Corps? I love it when the rich ask if taxing them is fair, because more often than not, they don't know **** all about fair and equal. The silver spoon has been in their mouth for too long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Medical research and funding should come from private funds, there is mucho profit in inventing drugs to cure disease. Gov't money should only go to pure science, or to science programs where the financial rewards are few and far between or to military science.

 

I can pay my taxes and my kids tuition, should I have to pay yours too?

 

By law, states and cities are responsible for their own infrastructure. Intrastate roads and bridges are paid for out of state gasoline taxes. Interstate highways are federal responsibilities. There is enough fiber optic cables installed between the large population centers to last for years, for the most part, it's paid for by telecom companies and companies that own the right of way. The places that lack broadbanc are mostly rural and mountain areas where the cost is prohibitive and we pay for that via a universal service fee on our telephone lines (both landline and cell), so there's no need to spend tax dollar on it too. The power grid is paid for via private funds as well, since private companies will be charging for the usage. President Obama may be new to the office of President, but he was a sitting senator and most of congress are incumbants too, so we are giving the money to essentially the same group we gave it to before.

 

My wife is a teacher at one of the "inner city" schools in Corpus Christi, Texas. She gets paid the same as all of the other teachers do before tenure, a little over $40k per year. She gets 3 months off out of every 12 month period. She gets great benefits and if she works 5 years in the Texas school system, she gets vested in the teacher's retirement plan. I didn't inherit what I have, I work for what I earn. No silver spoon here pal. I paid my own way through college...no loans...no grants...just work.

 

How much of my income should I have to pay to the federal gov't? How much should you have to pay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys all suck.

 

No ones right, you're all wrong.

 

Oh yeah and we are all going to die because of a giant asteroid that no one will notice because they have their heads shoved up the A$$es of their political party of their choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys all suck.

 

No ones right' date=' you're all wrong.

 

Oh yeah and we are all going to die because of a giant asteroid that no one will notice because they have their heads shoved up the A$$es of their political party of their choice.[/quote']

 

Asteroid

It's not if, but when?

Oh and super volcano, gamma ray burst, global melt down, ice age, attacking aliens (space type) etc. etc.

 

We keep busy with the politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys all suck.

 

No ones right' date=' you're all wrong.

 

Oh yeah and we are all going to die because of a giant asteroid that no one will notice because they have their heads shoved up the A$$es of their political party of their choice.[/quote']I think this requires another link to...

 

Religion and Politics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen I'm a first rate scientist. I read this whole book once it had awesome pictures of sharks.

 

My computer hasn't said anything about asteroids but I've got a feeling, it's like that distant feeling you get when that girl that you're stalking wakes up or when your sitting by yourself and you know all your friends are conspiring against you even though you've been avoiding them for a weeks.

 

It's going to be here relatively but not immediately soonish and not only that but I hear its been reading up on politics too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Medical research and funding should come from private funds' date=' there is mucho profit in inventing drugs to cure disease. Gov't money should only go to pure science, or to science programs where the financial rewards are few and far between or to military science. [b']Sure, huge profits in the private medical sector. Huge profits gained by charging outrageous fees for medications, and similarly outrageous fees for health insurance, to the point where it's unaffordable for many of the sickest people in America. Private healthcare is a joke. No one should die because they can't afford treatment. That shouldn't be accepted by any government's law, because it's not even an ethical position to take. The right to live is a universal one that is not stripped from a person once they get laid off or take a job with a low paying salary[/b]

 

I can pay my taxes and my kids tuition, should I have to pay yours too? Nope, your taxes are doing that. You aren't paying your taxes, your kids' tuition, and then paying my 17k/year tuition fee. You're paying your taxes, which parts of that go to education funds, which will either be put towards investing in a school or investing in a bright student's future. How can you possibly ***** about that? Are you so selfish and callous? You ***** so much about your tax breaks from charitable donations being cut, but you also ***** that your taxes are being raised to provide for charitable services for students and schools in need. I don't know whether to call you a hyprocrite, a paradox, or both.

 

By law, states and cities are responsible for their own infrastructure. Intrastate roads and bridges are paid for out of state gasoline taxes. Interstate highways are federal responsibilities. There is enough fiber optic cables installed between the large population centers to last for years, for the most part, it's paid for by telecom companies and companies that own the right of way. The places that lack broadbanc are mostly rural and mountain areas where the cost is prohibitive and we pay for that via a universal service fee on our telephone lines (both landline and cell), so there's no need to spend tax dollar on it too. The power grid is paid for via private funds as well, since private companies will be charging for the usage. President Obama may be new to the office of President, but he was a sitting senator and most of congress are incumbants too, so we are giving the money to essentially the same group we gave it to before.Where do you get the idea that there's plenty of fiber laid down? I live in West Lafayette, Indiana. Ranked in the top 5 most intellectual cities in the country, and even here there are areas that don't have broadband access. I can drive to campus, and then drive 10 minutes away and be in an area that doesn't have access to anything other than what you can get off a phone line. We are miles behind other countries in the way of broadband access.

 

Yeah, lets leave it to the private sector to develop clean energy. They have tons of motivation to fund that research. It's not like they make billions and billions of dollars off of outdated energy technology (fossil fuels, oil), and it's not like it'd cost just as much to develop, refine, and then put in place the infrastructure to support a newer, cleaner technology. I have a hard time believing that the same people complaining about a 4,000 dollar tax raise are going to be super keen on spending these billions of dollars.

 

My wife is a teacher at one of the "inner city" schools in Corpus Christi, Texas. She gets paid the same as all of the other teachers do before tenure, a little over $40k per year. She gets 3 months off out of every 12 month period. She gets great benefits and if she works 5 years in the Texas school system, she gets vested in the teacher's retirement plan. I didn't inherit what I have, I work for what I earn. No silver spoon here pal. I paid my own way through college...no loans...no grants...just work.

 

How much of my income should I have to pay to the federal gov't? How much should you have to pay?You should, like all law-abiding citizens, pay what the government tells you to pay, and the government should tell you to pay what is most fair and equal towards all of it's 303 million citizens. If the government doesn't levy an appropriate fee, then in 4 years we can elect a new one. But as it stands, it looks like that's what our government is now trying to do, for once. It finally looks like the government is trying to make it work the best for everyone. And if that means that someone making 250k/year can't buy another LP Custom so a sick person can live for another 20 years, I think I'm fine with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...