RE: White House advisers say Fox News is not news (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


tazzygirl -> RE: White House advisers say Fox News is not news (10/24/2009 10:06:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: blacksword404

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales


The model of the "lazy bums who won't help themselves" is a myth used very well to the advantage of those who want to protect their inherited wealth.


Hmm. Well I know one of those myths. She has been on welfare longer than I been alive. She is capable of working but just chooses not to. Why? Laziness. It is easier for her to get her government money than to get a job and make her own. And that was her thinking.


I thought most states went to workfare states.  Some people do fall through the cracks.  Have you tried reporting her?  Could be other reasons she cant work and is too ashamed to tell you.




TheHeretic -> RE: White House advisers say Fox News is not news (10/24/2009 10:10:03 PM)

Go back to the first page of this thread, Spinner.  Read the Axelrod quote in Rulemylife's quoted portion of the OP (at the bottom).  Read about the attempt to offer the executive pay czar for the networks to interview without Fox being given access (I posted a link to that along the way somewhere).

Bush did it?  Do you really want to pile into that shopping cart adventure?

So what are the odds the Obama administration is going to try to make this whole Fox News pissing contest go away now?  Will they cut their losses and walk away, or, keep being stupid on tomorrow's talk shows?  Considering some of these same people get to weigh in on the slightly more important Afghanistan decision, I'd kinda like to see them learning quickly about unwinnable battles


edit to fix an error - 'with' became 'without'




SpinnerofTales -> RE: White House advisers say Fox News is not news (10/24/2009 10:14:38 PM)

quote:

Bush did it? Do you really want to pile into that shopping cart adventure?



I never said a word about "Bush did it" I just said that it was a criticism, not any official attempt to destroy Fox News.

Personally, I think dignifying them with notice was a mistake. And I would hope that now that their piece has been said, no matter how much I may personally agree, they'll go back to worrying about important matters.




TheHeretic -> RE: White House advisers say Fox News is not news (10/24/2009 10:33:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: blacksword404

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales


The model of the "lazy bums who won't help themselves" is a myth used very well to the advantage of those who want to protect their inherited wealth.


Hmm. Well I know one of those myths. She has been on welfare longer than I been alive. She is capable of working but just chooses not to. Why? Laziness. It is easier for her to get her government money than to get a job and make her own. And that was her thinking.


I thought most states went to workfare states.  Some people do fall through the cracks.  Have you tried reporting her?  Could be other reasons she cant work and is too ashamed to tell you.



It varies widely, Tazzy.  Welfare (or the collection of federal programs that fall under that umbrella term) is a Federal program, but the states get to set their own rules, and, at the actual participant level, doling out the checks is run by the counties.

There is very much is a permanent welfare underclass in our country, Tazzy.  It is multi-generational, it is multi-tiered, and, if you have the right voucher, you can even leave an inheritance of subsidized housing to your heirs. 

The system is badly screwed up, and in need of a major overhaul.  It should be a safety net, but we have allowed it to become a hammock.  Worse, we now have a couple generations of a subculture that believe they are entitled to kick it in that hammock for life.  Real reform is going to suck for them.




SpinnerofTales -> RE: White House advisers say Fox News is not news (10/24/2009 10:44:56 PM)

quote:


The system is badly screwed up, and in need of a major overhaul. It should be a safety net, but we have allowed it to become a hammock. Worse, we now have a couple generations of a subculture that believe they are entitled to kick it in that hammock for life. Real reform is going to suck for them.
ORIGINAL: TheHeretic



Before you start talking about a hammock, Heritic, I would suggest taking a look at how these people live. Yes, there is a welfare underclass in this society. Current rules are more often than not designed to foster it. But it is not a road to a decent life without work. It is a life of spirit killing poverty that can only be tolerated by those who have been convinced that there is nothing better they can aspire to. No one is living in this manner because they have a better quality of life from their "handouts" than they could if they were working. Part of any reform is going to have to address that as well.





TheHeretic -> RE: White House advisers say Fox News is not news (10/24/2009 10:58:44 PM)

Sorry, Spinner.  I should probably let you know that I have been at the bottom of the economic ladder in my life.  Liberal guilt just flat doesn't work on me.  I don't feel one bit guilty about having worked my ass off to get out of that. 

I also have positive, constructive suggestions on how we can make the system work better, and a few other ideas that would dramatically change the landscape of social services delivery.

I like that we have a safety net.




SpinnerofTales -> RE: White House advisers say Fox News is not news (10/25/2009 6:08:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Sorry, Spinner.  I should probably let you know that I have been at the bottom of the economic ladder in my life.  Liberal guilt just flat doesn't work on me.  I don't feel one bit guilty about having worked my ass off to get out of that. 

I also have positive, constructive suggestions on how we can make the system work better, and a few other ideas that would dramatically change the landscape of social services delivery.

I like that we have a safety net.


I am not talking liberal guilt. I am saying that the welfare mentality is fostered because there is money to be made out of it. As an example, a while ago there were a few minor articles published around New York about some rooms the government was renting to use for the housing of homeless and welfare recipients. To put it mildly, these places were hell holes. They may have beaten a cardboard box on the street but not by much and not in every respect. How much was the city government spending on each of these rooms? $3,000 a month. Someone somewhere was making quite a killing on the fact that there was money being spent on welfare benefits and the fact that it isn't a big priority that the recipients actually get helped.

I would like to hear your constructive ideas for reform (perhaps in a new thread to avoid hijacking charges) but I'm with you when you say the current system is broken. I also say that one thing we have to accept is that the recipients aren't the only cause of the problem. Somewhere people are making money off of the system and, like most people making a profit on something, they have no interest at all in changing the situation.





KYsissy -> RE: White House advisers say Fox News is not news (10/25/2009 6:18:42 AM)

"Statistically, the biggest difference is how little negative coverage there is of Obama on MSNBC versus the press generally. On Fox, the biggest variance is how much more positive coverage there is of McCain than elsewhere."
You would have to read the charts. If you look at the one for the positive, neutral, and negative stories for either candidate, you will see a slight skew compared to MSNBC's dramatic pro Obama skew.
And yes I read the whole article and looked at the data,  I got way past the first paragraph.
I'm not a Fox defender, I don't even watch it.  But it appears very curious to me that the one news outlet not toeing the administration line doesn't get a little respect even from those who don't like it.  

When the repubs are in I want a news organization that will go after them and keep them honest.







Moonhead -> RE: White House advisers say Fox News is not news (10/25/2009 6:26:17 AM)

In which case, it's probably as well that Obama has gone after Fox: without that, everybody would be dismissing them as a bunch of neocons throwing a whiney tantrum because the GOP lost the last election and there's a black guy in the White House, wouldn't they? As Spinner says, he's made a very bad move doing that, and it's just going to get worse the longer he keeps this up.
(That said, as the Republicans have a news network biased in their favour, I don't see why the Democrats shouldn't have one as well.)




CreativeDominant -> RE: White House advisers say Fox News is not news (10/26/2009 7:27:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

So, does that mean the other networks are not the liberally-biased, conservative-hating organizations that the right has been claiming for years?

No, it means they were smart enough in a business sense to realize that if it is FOX today, it could be them tomorrow.


Which was really my point.

Because, contrary to Fox's crying and hand-wringing, Bush did the same thing.

They benefited from unparalleled access to the White House during the Bush administration while Bush spurned other news organizations.


President Bush Refused NY Times Requests For Interviews

Published by Fred Soto• November 12th, 2008 RSS News Feed


An interesting article in the LA Times suggests that President Bush tried to control the media from his inauguration to the bitter end. There have been numerous articles about talking points that the White House would send over to Fox News and Bush has given exclusives to the people at Fox and calls to Rush Limbaugh.

The New York Times, for instance, has had a standing request to interview President Bush since well before I came on this beat in May 2006. So far, no interview — and the reason why is hardly a secret. White House officials are quite open about the fact that we have not gotten an interview because they don’t like our coverage.
 
Funny how your paragraph came from a liberal news source...by a writer whose liberal biases are known from other articles he's written.  Well-known...such as Rosen, Sowell, Will, etc....the difference being they write commentary, not editorials masquerading as news stories.

And by the by...though it may seem a small distinction to you but there is a big difference between someone choosing not to do an interview with a liberal print source that has, no matter how big they may be in the newspaper biz, a relatively small audience and choosing to bring the weight of the administration to bear on a network and marginalize it by not only refusing it access but stating that it is a network filled with lies and distortion.  Or do your ideologic blinders keep you from seeing that difference, rule?




CreativeDominant -> RE: White House advisers say Fox News is not news (10/26/2009 7:44:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:

Surely...with all the laws against discrimination based on race/gender/religion in the fields of employment and education, with programs and organizations such as the Equal Opportunity Act, Title IX, the Negro Scholarship Fund, the NAACP, N.O.W. and on and on and on, you aren't going to tell me that the field still isn't level enough? Unless you advocate taking away companies, organizations, wealth from individuals who either built it themselves or whose families built it and redistributing it? Unless you advocate just kicking out the heads of companies and replacing them with women or minorities not based on their merits but simply on their gender or race?
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant



Let's look at that "even playing field". Even a casual perusal of the census figures shows us that the average white family income is $48,000 per year. The average black family income is $30,000. Now it seems to me that there are only two possible explanations for this. Either there is a systemic imbalance that encourage that inequity or the average black family is actually worth $18,000 a year less than an average white family. I personally believe in the former. If you believe in the latter, please do explain what you feel that difference in value is.
Actually...there is ANOTHER explanation, Spinner and that is this...there are more white families in which the man and the woman both work at higher level jobs than there are black people.  Now then, I suppose you could state that even with all those programs in place, it is because blacks are still somehow held down in society but then, in comparison to someone like Thomas Sowell or Colin Powell or Condaleeza Rice and even the annointed one...Barack Obama...that would make a fairly hollow argument unless you choose to see it from the liberal perspective.  The opportunities are there for people to achieve what they wish to achieve.  Hell, in some cases, there are MORE opportunities...in this state, a minority construction firm must be considered before a white-owned construction firm for any sort of government contract through things such as a sliding scale applied to contract bids.

quote:

It also doesn't indicate a level playing field when the gap between the richest 5% and the average working person has widened to a point never seen in this country before. Again, it would seem to there are only two alternatives. First is that the upper 5% has become far smarter and harder working. The second is that societal policies have been skewed in their favor. Once again, I believe the former to be true. If you believe the latter to be the case, I more than welcome your perspective upon it.
Actually, I believe you would favor the second alternative.  Of the two, you are right, I would favor the first...but there again, I don't happen to take your perspective as gospel.  There are plenty of other reasons for the gap becoming wider...wildly increasing interest rates which have favored the investments of those in that top 5%, enabling them to invest even further while at the same time, more readily available credit to those below that top 5% and them choosing to access that, putting themselves in debt to live a lifestyle that few could afford.  Just because credit is available does not mean you have to avail yourself of it and yet records show that many did just that and then when they could not afford what they KNEW they could not afford, they let it go to repossession, thus skewing statistics further.

There are always going to be the wealthy among us.  And whether you like it or not, some of them got there by hard work and smarts...Sam Walton and Bill Gates being two good examples from two differing sides of the ideologic spectrum.  Ironic though that both got there through a capitalistic manner.
If you want to clamp down on rules restricting how wealth is made, then start with rules that close loopholes that should not exist.  But to beggar thy neighbor in the interest of making things more equal?  That's not equal opportunity and it is not a level playing field,  that's equal outcome without equal effort and while that sounds soooooooooooo good to so many who believe in a utopia, for those of us who believe our efforts should be rewarded while those who do not work as hard do not deserve the same results as we do, it sounds like socialism.




CreativeDominant -> RE: White House advisers say Fox News is not news (10/26/2009 7:49:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

In which case, it's probably as well that Obama has gone after Fox: without that, everybody would be dismissing them as a bunch of neocons throwing a whiney tantrum because the GOP lost the last election and there's a black guy in the White House, wouldn't they? As Spinner says, he's made a very bad move doing that, and it's just going to get worse the longer he keeps this up.
(That said, as the Republicans have a news network biased in their favour, I don't see why the Democrats shouldn't have one as well.)
They do...several...as stated earlier...ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, Newsweek, Time, The New York Times, the LA Times, The Washington Post, etc, etc, etc..  And now there's talk of Oprah starting another network devoted to the "vision" of Obama and those like him.




mnottertail -> RE: White House advisers say Fox News is not news (10/26/2009 7:51:16 AM)

Well, it is a numbers thing, there isnt many on the reasoned right, so it is going to favor liberals, numerically------- simply a numbers game, and not any conspiracy or imbalance.

Ron




willbeurdaddy -> RE: White House advisers say Fox News is not news (10/26/2009 8:05:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:

Your original statement appears to be referring to taxes, period. If you want to debate whether or not there is some other "stealing" going on, support it by something other than income taxes, because there you fail. ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy




Take a look at the wealth gap between the middle class and the upper 5%. Either there are policies in place to increase that gap to an unprecedented extent or it is your opinion that the upper 5% have drastically increased in productivity over the last decade. The figures show, in fact, that it is the middle class that has increased productivity while facing stagnating real wages. There has been a massive redistribution of wealth over the last years and guess what? The working man and woman hasn't been on the right end of it.




1. Those arent the only two options.
2. It is your opinion only whether it is the "right end" of any wealth distribution.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: White House advisers say Fox News is not news (10/26/2009 8:10:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Favored, RML.  Not attempted to blackball. Don't try to rewrite the original.  It was your fucking OP.

Spin away, though.  Free speech is a wonderful thing. 



Apparently Bush didn't believe free speech was such a wonderful thing.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/index.h...

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In acknowledging the message was true, President Bush took aim at the messenger Saturday, saying that a newspaper jeopardized national security by revealing that he authorized wiretaps on U.S. citizens after September 11.



ReBelle Nation: CNN: Bush attacks paper for jeopardizing national ...

In acknowledging the message was true, President Bush took aim at the messenger Saturday, saying that The New York Times jeopardized national security by revealing that he authorized wiretaps on U.S. citizens after September 11. The president said he allowed the NSA "to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda." Publishing details of the program "damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk," Bush said.




It doesnt suprise me that you only recognize limits on free speech when they would limit conservative speech. Jeopardizing national security is the most important limit on free speech.




mnottertail -> RE: White House advisers say Fox News is not news (10/26/2009 8:16:37 AM)

<snip>
Jeopardizing national security is the most important limit on free speech.
</snip>

Ya, cause we saw how well that worked last time we let neo-con blowholes yammer away? And BTW, werent the neo-cons up in arms about the president (freely speaking) when he said that he will converse with anyone to resolve differences?

How does that square, with the right to blowhole? Or is that only a conservative right too?

Ron




willbeurdaddy -> RE: White House advisers say Fox News is not news (10/26/2009 8:23:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

<snip>
Jeopardizing national security is the most important limit on free speech.
</snip>

Ya, cause we saw how well that worked last time we let neo-con blowholes yammer away? And BTW, werent the neo-cons up in arms about the president (freely speaking) when he said that he will converse with anyone to resolve differences?

How does that square, with the right to blowhole? Or is that only a conservative right too?

Ron


3 non sequiters in one post. Going for the record?




mnottertail -> RE: White House advisers say Fox News is not news (10/26/2009 8:26:30 AM)

non sequitUr.

well the premises are non sequiturs, why not the conclusions?

Ron




Moloch -> RE: White House advisers say Fox News is not news (10/26/2009 5:27:41 PM)

Tax Burden of Top 1% Now Exceeds That of Bottom 95%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Blog/blog20090729-chart2.jpg




Lucylastic -> RE: White House advisers say Fox News is not news (10/26/2009 5:30:10 PM)

Sheesh that was two years ago.....wheres the fun in that?,just more to blame on bush, not Obama.




Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875