News Channel Bias
Quote: AZDuffmanSorry, but as I see it they claim to want to pay more but choose not to do so.
Well, we disagree.
Anyway the economy is not run to be a perfect balance of input and output. If it were, maybe we wouldn't have a progressive tax system.
Most businesses measure labor and material as the minimum cost. But they gauge success on how much they generally get over that amount.
So, is the normal economy thinking, "fair". Hell no.
If the economy were fair it would work like physics, not like economics. You could only get what you put out., and nothing more or less. That would be fair.
Of course there is, even if a lot of people don't like it. Here is one of the clearest descriptions, from no less than CNN:Quote: Sonuvabish20-25K earners, with no kids, don't pay zero. They pay about 12%. Plus state. Why would they pay zero. That's not a question, there isn't an answer.
"In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Some in that group will even get additional money from the government because they qualify for refundable tax breaks.
"The ranks of those whose major federal tax burdens net out at zero -- or less -- is on the rise. The center's original 2009 estimate was 38%. That was before enactment in February of the $787 billion economic recovery package, which included a host of new or expanded tax breaks. . . . The vast majority of households making up to $30,000 fall into the category, as do nearly half of all households making between $30,000 and $40,000. . . . Nearly 22% of those making between $50,000 and $75,000 end up with no federal income tax liability or negative liability as do 9% of households with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000."
And none of that includes the tens of millions of illegal immigrants who despite their lawbreaking will be returned their payments under the new decree of amnesty.
By the way, what's your source for the number of $25,000-a-year earners who are paying federal income taxes?
Quote: rxwine
If the economy were fair it would work like physics, not like economics. You could only get what you put out., and nothing more or less. That would be fair.
And you would have no economy!
I think I saw this on "Shark Tank" but if not I do not remember where.......
A businessman treats dollars like soldiers going off to war. He expects each dollar he sends to battle to bring more dollars back. of course, there is the chance the dollar will not only not bring another dollar back, it may get killed in action! So the potential rate of return needs to be as high as possible to get him to send off those dollars.
Those dollars, of course, turn into jobs and production.
Now, some people don't have or don't want to risk those dollars. So they take jobs with varying degrees of safety. I get paid more than I did five years ago but I also have to use my car, pay my own health insurance, and have zero paid time off. The broker above me makes more, but he has the risk of having to get the business and get it paid for. And the wildcatter above him makes more yet because he puts funds at risk, six to seven figures, to put it all together. Below me are county workers and clerks who trade the potential for higher income for more stability and less variance in pay.
Now, tax the wildcatter at a higher rate and he needs less of the service from everyone down the line!
Money absolutely trickles down, but if you do not move yourself up then you are going to be living in a bad way no matter how much trickles because the rest of us as we move up are going to try to be more and more like the wildcatter.
Quote: SanchoPanzaOf course there is, even if a lot of people don't like it. Here is one of the clearest descriptions, from no less than CNN:
"In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Some in that group will even get additional money from the government because they qualify for refundable tax breaks.
"The ranks of those whose major federal tax burdens net out at zero -- or less -- is on the rise. The center's original 2009 estimate was 38%. That was before enactment in February of the $787 billion economic recovery package, which included a host of new or expanded tax breaks. . . . The vast majority of households making up to $30,000 fall into the category, as do nearly half of all households making between $30,000 and $40,000. . . . Nearly 22% of those making between $50,000 and $75,000 end up with no federal income tax liability or negative liability as do 9% of households with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000."
And none of that includes the tens of millions of illegal immigrants who despite their lawbreaking will be returned their payments under the new decree of amnesty.
By the way, what's your source for the number of $25,000-a-year earners who are paying federal income taxes?
You're ignoring federal taxes on FICA (the big one at 7.15% if they work for someone else, 14.3% if they're self-employed), gasoline, cigarettes, alcohol, and various other things. Federal INCOME taxes, yes, they can usually get refunds of all or part at that earning level. But can't get anything back on the rest, and most pay state taxes as well; those that don't have state income tax do have sales taxes, property tax, city taxes, more cig and booze taxes, car plate taxes...that 12% figure is probably low as a percent of someone earning that little.
Quote: SOOPOOI can assure you that well over 90% of Americans would classify me as rich. I think surveys of anesthesiologist give us an average income of around $350k per year. So I'll use that as a hypothetical without specifically mentioning my income. As a private corporation I was responsible for both halves of FICA, so that comes out to around $20k per year. There is NO CAP on Medicare tax, which I also have to pay both halves, so thats another $10k per year. Federal tax is around 35%, so thats around $120 per year. State tax is around 8%, another $28k per year. Real estate taxes around $14k per year. If I spend $80k per year on stuff, thats around $7k per year in sales taxes. There are a few thousand dollars in license fees that the government siphons from me as well. So out of 350 taxes will eat up around $209.
I understand no one will be shedding tears for me. I guess I will agree with you on this point.... Tax the 'super rich' more.... If you make over 10 million a year snag an extra 10%. Over $20 million an extra 20%. There.... I've fixed the tax code.... But don't ever tell me that I am undertaxed.
FICA cannot come out to 20k per year as it maxes out at $117,000 times the tax rate which for self employed is 12.4% so that goes to 14508. Cannot remember whether you are married or not know you have a kid but other then that not sure either way though federal rates for you are not 35% its 33% from $186,351 to $405,100 so that would cover the last lets be nice and say 200k of your income and the first 150k would be at 28% under 108k under since I was generous and only broke your work into two parts rather then the total number if you are married it is less then 104k. Don't know the state and locality you are in so cannot compare on the other two but those two changes alone mean you pay up to 20k a year less then what you are saying.
Now might your tax rate be too high its possible but it is significantly less then claimed especially since normal levels of deductions would lower it significantly. Also while others might claim you are rich that is just silly you are a quite high paid professional but hardly rich. I wouldn't even consider 1 million a year rich but its at least at a level where some I might consider nearing rich. I mean no offence but your not even in the top tax bracket.
Quote: beachbumbabs
You're ignoring federal taxes on FICA (the big one at 7.15% if they work for someone else, 14.3% if they're self-employed), gasoline, cigarettes, alcohol, and various other things. Federal INCOME taxes, yes, they can usually get refunds of all or part at that earning level. But can't get anything back on the rest, and most pay state taxes as well; those that don't have state income tax do have sales taxes, property tax, city taxes, more cig and booze taxes, car plate taxes...that 12% figure is probably low as a percent of someone earning that little.
The problem is "the rich" pay FICA, gasoline, alcohol, and all the "other" taxes you mention. Bottom line is the wealthy are paying most of the income taxes in the USA and the bottom 47% are paying virtually zero of them. Business owners can easily see 45% of their income gone before it hits the door. Yet liberals yell "NOT PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE!"
The time has come for the flat tax.
Quote: SOOPOOI can assure you that well over 90% of Americans would classify me as rich. I think surveys of anesthesiologist give us an average income of around $350k per year. So I'll use that as a hypothetical without specifically mentioning my income. As a private corporation I was responsible for both halves of FICA, so that comes out to around $20k per year. There is NO CAP on Medicare tax, which I also have to pay both halves, so thats another $10k per year. Federal tax is around 35%, so thats around $120 per year. State tax is around 8%, another $28k per year. Real estate taxes around $14k per year. If I spend $80k per year on stuff, thats around $7k per year in sales taxes. There are a few thousand dollars in license fees that the government siphons from me as well. So out of 350 taxes will eat up around $209.
I understand no one will be shedding tears for me. I guess I will agree with you on this point.... Tax the 'super rich' more.... If you make over 10 million a year snag an extra 10%. Over $20 million an extra 20%. There.... I've fixed the tax code.... But don't ever tell me that I am undertaxed.
350K is not rich, it's wealthy.
Sales tax and licenses don't count. Those are regressive anyways. They are barriers to poor people buying stuff. Seriously, boo hoo.
Income taxes are not real estate taxes. 20K earners don't need to worry about these, cuz they are paying rent instead of gaining equity. Maybe you don't know, but taxes and insurance is basically embedded in the rent price. Fortunately for renters, they can sometimes claim a small deduction on their taxes...and they have less paperwork. Also, they can even just rent a tiny bedroom, and pay less than a mortgage would cost! Wow, great deal.
Super-rich people use avenues to not pay taxes. Before the effective tax rate plummets, back down to what 20K earners pay, it goes up. But eventually, they have a zillion loopholes and pay next to nothing--in income taxes. GE pays $0, but profits a billion. I'm not talking about doctors who make $250K--I wouldn't imagine they earn enough to qualify for the 10% federal income tax rate.
Will you hire me? You're friggin rich.
It might be beneficial to double check what you and your employer are paying for Social Security insurance:Quote: beachbumbabsYou're ignoring federal taxes on FICA (the big one at 7.15% if they work for someone else, 14.3% if they're self-employed),
"The portion of the Social Security FICA tax that employees pay remains unchanged at the 6.2 percent withholding rate. Correspondingly, the portion of the tax that employers cover also remains at 6.2 percent of employee wages. This amounts to a total Social Security FICA tax of 12.4 percent. society for human resource management In addition, an important source of revenue for low-wage earners is the Earned Income Tax Credit, along with many other programs like Section 8.
As for state income taxes, about half the states come in at 0 to 2 percent. state tax rates Then come all the exemptions for public employees, not to mention the 14 states whose teachers are exempt from Social Security, as the State of Connecticut summarizes so well:
"When Congress passed the Social Security Act in 1935, it excluded federal, state, and local government employees from mandatory coverage. The exclusion for state and local public employees was based on constitutional concerns about whether the federal government could impose taxes on state governments. In the early 1950s, Congress passed a law that allowed state and local government employees to be covered if they voluntarily chose coverage in a referendum. The then-members of the Teachers' Retirement System voted against joining the Social Security system. In 1959, at the request of the Connecticut Education Association, the General Assembly prohibited TRS members from holding another referendum (CGS § 5-158(d)). The ban on Social Security coverage for Connecticut teachers remains in place."
Quote: AZDuffmanThe problem is "the rich" pay FICA, gasoline, alcohol, and all the "other" taxes you mention. Bottom line is the wealthy are paying most of the income taxes in the USA and the bottom 47% are paying virtually zero of them. Business owners can easily see 45% of their income gone before it hits the door. Yet liberals yell "NOT PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE!"
The time has come for the flat tax.
I actually agree with a flat tax. But for the polar opposite reason. I remember seeing that 47% statistic on Fox...they must show it a lot if I caught it. I'm pretty sure children are in there. The elderly. The unemployed. The homeless. The disabled. Those making less than 8K a year. Don't understand why people think it's good to increase the tax rate on $0. Think it's better to increase the rate on higher numbers. But again, not gonna argue this point either.
Quote: SanchoPanzaIt might be beneficial to double check what you and your employer are paying for Social Security insurance:
"The portion of the Social Security FICA tax that employees pay remains unchanged at the 6.2 percent withholding rate. Correspondingly, the portion of the tax that employers cover also remains at 6.2 percent of employee wages. This amounts to a total Social Security FICA tax of 12.4 percent. society for human resource management In addition, an important source of revenue for low-wage earners is the Earned Income Tax Credit, along with many other programs like Section 8.
As for state income taxes, about half the states come in at 0 to 2 percent. state tax rates Then come all the exemptions for public employees, not to mention the 14 states whose teachers are exempt from Social Security, as the State of Connecticut summarizes so well:
"When Congress passed the Social Security Act in 1935, it excluded federal, state, and local government employees from mandatory coverage. The exclusion for state and local public employees was based on constitutional concerns about whether the federal government could impose taxes on state governments. In the early 1950s, Congress passed a law that allowed state and local government employees to be covered if they voluntarily chose coverage in a referendum. The then-members of the Teachers' Retirement System voted against joining the Social Security system. In 1959, at the request of the Connecticut Education Association, the General Assembly prohibited TRS members from holding another referendum (CGS § 5-158(d)). The ban on Social Security coverage for Connecticut teachers remains in place."
I shorted the abbreviation by not including Medicare, also mandatory, that doesn't cap (but doesn't matter to the income bracket we're talking here; they'll never hit the cap). 6.2/12.4% to SS/FICA, .95/1.9% to Medicare. Commonly taken as 7.15/14.3% on pay stubs, listed as FICA.
Still can't come up with a source? Here is some help, thanks to abc news "So who are these 47 percent of Americans that Romney is not going to "worry" about winning over? In 2011 those 76 million people, about 46 percent of the people who filed taxes, did not pay a penny in income taxes, according to an analysis of IRS data by the bipartisan Tax Policy Center. But that does not mean nearly half of America skirted their federal tax burden.Quote: SonuvabishI remember seeing that 47% statistic on Fox...they must show it a lot if I caught it. I'm pretty sure children are in there. The elderly. The unemployed. The homeless. The disabled. Those making less than 8K a year.
Nearly two-thirds of the households that did not pay income tax in 2011 were on the hook for payroll taxes, a 4.2 percent tax that is automatically deducted from workers' paychecks to fund Social Security and Medicare. Only 18 percent of tax filers did not have to pay either income tax or payroll taxes. Nearly all of the people who did not pay either type of tax were elderly – 10.3 percent of total tax filers - or had incomes less than $20,000 – 6.9 percent.
But it's not just low-income people who get out of paying income taxes. About 1 percent of the top 1 percent of income earners, those making about $533,000 or more, did not pay income taxes. That's roughly 13,000 tax filers. And 4,000 millionaires are also escaping that burden, according to a Tax Policy Center analysis.
The majority of people who pay zero income tax, though, are low-income families. Last year 99 percent of people earning less than $10,000 per year paid no income tax. Roughly 78 percent of the households that did not pay income tax were below the poverty line.
Many of these low-income earners may not even realize they do not pay income tax. According to an April Gallup poll, 50 percent of people who earn less than $30,000 per year said the amount they pay in income taxes is too high. More than 80 percent of those people do not pay a dime of income tax.
Quote: beachbumbabsQuote: SanchoPanzaIt might be beneficial to double check what you and your employer are paying for Social Security insurance:
"The portion of the Social Security FICA tax that employees pay remains unchanged at the 6.2 percent withholding rate. Correspondingly, the portion of the tax that employers cover also remains at 6.2 percent of employee wages. This amounts to a total Social Security FICA tax of 12.4 percent. society for human resource management In addition, an important source of revenue for low-wage earners is the Earned Income Tax Credit, along with many other programs like Section 8.
As for state income taxes, about half the states come in at 0 to 2 percent. state tax rates Then come all the exemptions for public employees, not to mention the 14 states whose teachers are exempt from Social Security, as the State of Connecticut summarizes so well:
"When Congress passed the Social Security Act in 1935, it excluded federal, state, and local government employees from mandatory coverage. The exclusion for state and local public employees was based on constitutional concerns about whether the federal government could impose taxes on state governments. In the early 1950s, Congress passed a law that allowed state and local government employees to be covered if they voluntarily chose coverage in a referendum. The then-members of the Teachers' Retirement System voted against joining the Social Security system. In 1959, at the request of the Connecticut Education Association, the General Assembly prohibited TRS members from holding another referendum (CGS § 5-158(d)). The ban on Social Security coverage for Connecticut teachers remains in place."
I shorted the abbreviation by not including Medicare, also mandatory, that doesn't cap (but doesn't matter to the income bracket we're talking here; they'll never hit the cap). 6.2/12.4% to SS/FICA, .95/1.9% to Medicare. Commonly taken as 7.15/14.3% on pay stubs, listed as FICA.
Quote: SanchoPanzaOf course there is, even if a lot of people don't like it. Here is one of the clearest descriptions, from no less than CNN:
"In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Some in that group will even get additional money from the government because they qualify for refundable tax breaks.
"The ranks of those whose major federal tax burdens net out at zero -- or less -- is on the rise. The center's original 2009 estimate was 38%. That was before enactment in February of the $787 billion economic recovery package, which included a host of new or expanded tax breaks. . . . The vast majority of households making up to $30,000 fall into the category, as do nearly half of all households making between $30,000 and $40,000. . . . Nearly 22% of those making between $50,000 and $75,000 end up with no federal income tax liability or negative liability as do 9% of households with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000."
And none of that includes the tens of millions of illegal immigrants who despite their lawbreaking will be returned their payments under the new decree of amnesty.
By the way, what's your source for the number of $25,000-a-year earners who are paying federal income taxes?
What is my source? Well since it's impossible I ever made an amount close to that on a previous tax return and somehow remembered it, then I must have just looked at the tax brackets and done some math--unless that's also impossible.
What exactly is a household? If you're married with 4 children and you gross $30,000 combined, of course you have no federal tax liability. You're broke. This info is irrelevant; it's designed to confuse and mislead. The vast majority of households making under $30,000 consist of children that are part of a family, but are counted as an individual household--if this statement is plausibly true.
Those don't sound like legal pay stubs. At any rate, the folks we're discussing here are almost certainly on Medicaid or one of its disguises. Meaning that they don't have much skin in the health game, either, if any at all.Quote: SanchoPanzaI shorted the abbreviation by not including Medicare, also mandatory, that doesn't cap (but doesn't matter to the income bracket we're talking here; they'll never hit the cap). 6.2/12.4% to SS/FICA, .95/1.9% to Medicare. Commonly taken as 7.15/14.3% on pay stubs, listed as FICA.
Quote: Dalex64People seem to pretty readily mix up "paid no federal income tax" with "paid no taxes."
Yeah, that's been a problem for a few years now.
Here is the headline
FCC approves Obama-backed Internet regulations, critics decry 'power grab'
Unbelievable bias. A gazillion companies such a Google support this.
Yet anti Obama fox news puts "Obama" in the headline.
Lots of conservative groups support this decision. The headline is accurate but really absurd.
Something Like "Google" instead of Obama would be more accurate.
Quote: terapinedJust checked Foxnews website.
Here is the headline
FCC approves Obama-backed Internet regulations, critics decry 'power grab'
Unbelievable bias. A gazillion companies such a Google support this.
Yet anti Obama fox news puts "Obama" in the headline.
Lots of conservative groups support this decision. The headline is accurate but really absurd.
Something Like "Google" instead of Obama would be more accurate.
You mean they accidentally gave President Obama credit for a good decision? I don't think my heart can take the shock. :X
Yup. Nothing like a self-professed populist-leftist national leader joining indomitable forces with "a gazillion" oligarchic enterprises like Google.Quote: beachbumbabsYou mean they accidentally gave President Obama credit for a good decision? I don't think my heart can take the shock. :X
Wait a minute? I thought FNC was just older viewers who were dying off and not being replaced.
Quote: AZDuffmanFNC gets 10% bump in 25-54 demo, total in demo more than MSNBC and CNN combined!
Wait a minute? I thought FNC was just older viewers who were dying off and not being replaced.
FNC is well run, even if you disagree with their "bias" they have flashy set ups and entertaining hosts.
Even if you hate many of their anchors and commentators, its hard to argue that they are entertaining, and generally intriguing speakers.
Its not surprising it appeals to young people more than slower paced news channels.
Quote: GandlerQuote: AZDuffmanFNC gets 10% bump in 25-54 demo, total in demo more than MSNBC and CNN combined!
Wait a minute? I thought FNC was just older viewers who were dying off and not being replaced.
FNC is well run, even if you disagree with their "bias" they have flashy set ups and entertaining hosts.
Even if you hate many of their anchors and commentators, its hard to argue that they are entertaining, and generally intriguing speakers.
Its not surprising it appeals to young people more than slower paced news channels.
I think Fox News does a decently fair job, although I do think they slant more to the right than MSNBC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN etc, but that is not saying much. People who have a conservative tilt in their line of thinking have very few outlets to go in. Outside of FNC, all the major news networks tilt toward the left, even networks that aren't news networks tilt toward the left like ESPN, Bravo, E!, Animal Planet, Discovery Channel, Comedy Central. One of the major reasons Fox News is so successful is that half the country is sick and tired of being brow-beaten by the left at every turn that they make.
HBO has the guts to do an expose on scientology, fox wont go there because cant offend Greta with a hard news story on scientology.
Foxnews is right up there with unwatchable MSNBC with Al the liar Sharpton.
With the internet, why even watch TV news, its all so so lame.
Quote: terapinedI cant watch Foxnews. Its so slanted. Its the blame Obama for everything channel. Bill o, its all spin. I hate spin.
HBO has the guts to do an expose on scientology, fox wont go there because cant offend Greta with a hard news story on scientology.
Foxnews is right up there with unwatchable MSNBC with Al the liar Sharpton.
With the internet, why even watch TV news, its all so so lame.
Network news has the advantage of at least being subject to libel laws and scrurinzed by their competitors for the slightest innacuracy. Random bloggers typing rants I'm their bedrooms or starting conspiratorial YouTube channels don't have the same checks and balances.
Yes networks make mistakes and no doubt lie on purpose sometimes. But they almost always get called out by a rival or the public and have to correct the record or post an apology.
As for bias everyone has a bias, as long as their stories are based in facts political biases are a reality of the world.
Quote: GandlerNetwork news has the advantage of at least being subject to libel laws and scrurinzed by their competitors for the slightest innacuracy. Random bloggers typing rants I'm their bedrooms or starting conspiratorial YouTube channels don't have the same checks and balances.
Yes networks make mistakes and no doubt lie on purpose sometimes. But they almost always get called out by a rival or the public and have to correct the record or post an apology.
As for bias everyone has a bias, as long as their stories are based in facts political biases are a reality of the world.
Fox is called on it all the time but nothing ever happens. I mean look at O'Reilly and his war reporting or the No Go Zones myth which was only corrected after the freaking prime minister of Britain called them idiots. They issued a correction but no one was punished for it and a number of people shoveling that crap didn't issue an apology.
What stories are important to me are not important to say foxnews.
I an very interested scientology new stories because I live in Tampa. In nearby Clearwater scientology has their huge Flag super powers building.
Its a very strange town, Clearwater, its cult central.
Just walking around downtown is very weird, straight out of the twilight zone.
Foxnews does not report on scientology because they dont want to offend Greta. Really sad.
My go to site for new is not a blog, its refdesk.com
All the news providers are linked there.
I click on stories that interest me.
Check out the HBO documentary "Going Clear, the prison of belief" Its the documentary foxnews Greta will insist you should not watch.
I'll watch anything Greta does not want me to watch :-)
Quote: TwirdmanFox is called on it all the time but nothing ever happens. I mean look at O'Reilly and his war reporting or the No Go Zones myth which was only corrected after the freaking prime minister of Britain called them idiots. They issued a correction but no one was punished for it and a number of people shoveling that crap didn't issue an apology.
I think we had this argument already (or I did with somebody).
But there are Muslim zones in many European countries.
Try walking with your girlfriend in a short skirt and skimpy top in certain neighborhoods on England and sees what happens. Sharia Law is enforced by street justice.
Or even better try walking through a Muslim neighborhood holding hands as a gay man and see how well you are treated....
Muslim neighborhoods are not pleasant places. Especially because in Western countries Muslims usually use neighborhoods to group together, which means its usually the more conservative Muslims who live there that refuse to conform to Western society and want to control their own area.
Quote: terapined
Foxnews does not report on scientology because they dont want to offend Greta. Really sad.
So, are you saying that the lamesteram media is reporting on Scientology but FNC is not because of Greta? Or are you saying there is not a story of sufficient interest so FNC is not covering it nor is anyone else?
From what you have posted it looks as though HBO did something on it. That I do not see you mentioning other outlets covering it tells me there is little interest. I know I would have little to no interest unless you can show me someone outside the group is being harmed.
Quote: AZDuffmanSo, are you saying that the lamesteram media is reporting on Scientology but FNC is not because of Greta? Or are you saying there is not a story of sufficient interest so FNC is not covering it nor is anyone else?
From what you have posted it looks as though HBO did something on it. That I do not see you mentioning other outlets covering it tells me there is little interest. I know I would have little to no interest unless you can show me someone outside the group is being harmed.
And quite frankly, hasn't much of the country written off scientology as a joke? For at least a few years now?
O"Reilly was not working for Fox News at that time. Fox News Channel did not even exist then.Quote: TwirdmanFox is called on it all the time but nothing ever happens. I mean look at O'Reilly and his war reporting or the No Go Zones
Quote: Gabes22And quite frankly, hasn't much of the country written off scientology as a joke? For at least a few years now?
I never paid much attention to it. A news channel would be better off to expose the reality of the religion of "peace and tolerance" if they want to do a religious bit. What is scientology anyways? A guy jumping on a couch on a daily talker show?
Quote: AZDuffmanI never paid much attention to it. A news channel would be better off to expose the reality of the religion of "peace and tolerance" if they want to do a religious bit. What is scientology anyways? A guy jumping on a couch on a daily talker show?
I agree. It does not take much courage to take on Scientology. Everyone does. Its already regarded as a cult by the mainstream (rightfully so).
But the religion of peace needs to be exposed. You have to be careful though, the peaceful people even have a habit of killing cartoonists.
Quote: AZDuffman. I know I would have little to no interest unless you can show me someone outside the group is being harmed.
Narconon
http://tonyortega.org/
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=scientology&oq=scientology&gs_l=news-cc.12..43j0l9j43i53.633.3417.0.5564.11.7.0.4.4.0.150.872.1j6.7.0...0.0...1ac.1.aneSLePsteQ
Quote: AZDuffmanA news channel would be better off to expose the reality of the religion of "peace and tolerance" if they want to do a religious bit.
They wouldn't dare.
edited for taste
Are they not doing it because of Tom?
Quote: Dalex64When is the last time any of the national news networks did a story on Scientology?
Are they not doing it because of Tom?
Who cares? It's a religion that has largely been marginalized in American Society.
Quote: Gabes22Who cares? It's a religion that has largely been marginalized in American Society.
I mentioned it because apparently Fox News isn't covering any of their stories. Are any of the other major national news networks covering their stories?
Did they not mention this HBO thing, but the other networks did?
Quote: Dalex64I mentioned it because apparently Fox News isn't covering any of their stories. Are any of the other major national news networks covering their stories?
Did they not mention this HBO thing, but the other networks did?
ABC news has balls
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adgYpfwJuBI
CNN has balls
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVZJRX-702A&list=PLA32A75C6B6976B29
Fox news has Greta LOL
Quote: Dalex64I mentioned it because apparently Fox News isn't covering any of their stories. Are any of the other major national news networks covering their stories?
Did they not mention this HBO thing, but the other networks did?
Personally, if I was watching the news and they talked about scientology, I would change the channel
Quote: Gabes22Personally, if I was watching the news and they talked about scientology, I would change the channel
+1.01
I have no interest in it. It does not affect my life and I do not see it as a threat.
Quote: Gabes22Personally, if I was watching the news and they talked about scientology, I would change the channel
If you don't live near Clearwater FL, a scientology cult city with the Super Powers building, yes, I totally agree , change the channel.
I live near Clearwater, I'm watching :-)
Its really a fascinating subject. take the Flag Super Powers building in Clearwater.
Did you know the highest level scientologist, a "clear" can kill simply with their mind. Yup, super powers. Its really out there, way way out there :-)
Of course its all BS but these people are really deluded.
Greta fan? Ok, now I understand lol
Quote: terapinedIf you don't live near Clearwater FL, a scientology cult city with the Super Powers building, yes, I totally agree , change the channel.
I live near Clearwater, I'm watching :-)
That is a valid point, but don't expect a lead story on it.
Quote: terapinedABC news has balls
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adgYpfwJuBI
CNN has balls
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVZJRX-702A&list=PLA32A75C6B6976B29
Fox news has Greta LOL
So, 5 years ago is the last time a major news network covered Scientology?
Quote: terapinedABC news has balls
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adgYpfwJuBI
CNN has balls
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVZJRX-702A&list=PLA32A75C6B6976B29
Fox news has Greta LOL
It was on Fox last night, Meghan whats her name at 9. You have been proven repeatedly to have a very distant relationship to truth.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/03/26/hbo-documentary-exposes-alleged-egregious-violation-human-rights
Quote: bobsimsIt was on Fox last night, Meghan whats her name at 9. You have been proven repeatedly to have a very distant relationship to truth.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/03/26/hbo-documentary-exposes-alleged-egregious-violation-human-rights
You are right. I didn't see this. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
Out of all the people at Fox, I have to admit that I respect Megyn Kelly's reporting.
They did do 5 1/2 minutes on her show with Mike Rinder who I respect a lot.
In this instance, I give kudos to Foxnews.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7ynm-XHpQs
Would like a little more, its a complicated subject, ABC and CNN devoted hours
Quote: terapinedYou are right. I didn't see this. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
Out of all the people at Fox, I have to admit that I respect Megyn Kelly's reporting.
They did do 5 1/2 minutes on her show with Mike Rinder who I respect a lot.
In this instance, I give kudos to Foxnews.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7ynm-XHpQs
Would like a little more, its a complicated subject, ABC and CNN devoted hours
She has on ANOTHER story on it tonight, airing as I type this.
Saw this article
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/07/08/bakers-who-refused-to-make-lesbian-wedding-cake-told-to-pay-135k-by-monday-or-else.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fmost-popular+%28Internal+-+Most+Popular+Content%29
135k fine for not making a lesbian wedding cake.
gag order
Hmm, even though I lean left, its a pretty outrageous story.
I looked into it further
There was no wedding.
135k fine for discriminatory sign. They refused to cease and desist due to a discriminatory sign. This stems from the old whites only signs. You cannot put up signs like that on a business that serves the public.
There is no gag order. They are free to speak about the situation too anybody about anything involved in the situation.
The truth, you wont get it from Fox
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/07/06/right-wing-media-invents-gag-order-for-anti-gay/204267
Quote: terapined
There was no wedding.
135k fine for discriminatory sign. They refused to cease and desist due to a discriminatory sign. This stems from the old whites only signs. You cannot put up signs like that on a business that serves the public.
There is no gag order. They are free to speak about the situation too anybody about anything involved in the situation.
The truth, you wont get it from Fox
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/07/06/right-wing-media-invents-gag-order-for-anti-gay/204267
And you think Media Matters is "the truth?" They are about the biggest liberal hack out there.
Simple answer on the sign, just say "WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE" which is in reality a basic human right. Nobody should be forced to do business with someone they do not want to do business with. If Wal-Mart can refuse to make a cake they do not want to make, the local bakery should have that same right.
Quote: terapinedThe truth, you wont get it from Fox
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/07/06/right-wing-media-invents-gag-order-for-anti-gay/204267
I get the gist of your whole quote, but I have to tell you that one look at the link and a quick browse of the website shows me that the only "media" that seems to "matter" to them is the stuff on the Right. Not one single reference to anything said by a Liberal-leaning media outlet or commentator is challenged.
So...if you say that Fox doesn't tell the truth because they have a "slant", how can you say that "Media Matters" tells the truth because they also have a slant?
I'm not judging the one article you referenced; simply the fact that it is hard to believe that an outlet that only takes one side to task for what they report is any better than the folks they attack.
