Scandal 1,2, and 3 - Page 2 - 600RR.net
Politics This forum is dedicated to any political subject you got in mind

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #31 of 99 (permalink) Old 05-24-2013, 07:53 AM Thread Starter
AMA Supersport Racer
 
deluzrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: menifee ca
Posts: 1,151
Thanks: 29
Thanked 62 Times in 55 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Please reference a story like this. Not this recent scandals I hope. Are you also trying to downplay this situation like msnbc?


Sent from Motorcycle.com App
deluzrider is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 99 (permalink) Old 05-24-2013, 07:56 AM
Pocketbike Racer
 
AbnInf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 420
Thanks: 0
Thanked 61 Times in 48 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews

K8 GSXR750
K7 CBR600RR

AbnInf is offline  
post #33 of 99 (permalink) Old 05-24-2013, 08:19 AM
Moto GP Racer
 
Niner1000RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Posts: 6,502
Thanks: 42
Thanked 223 Times in 189 Posts
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbeaul View Post
like clock work anytime Fox News breaks a story they get all fired up, parrot the sound bites, wave the team flag... Only to find out 2 months later that Fox News intentionally blew the story completely out of proportion and that what they initially reported was completely inaccurate.
Wait, so if it's on "FOX NEWS" it's not a legit issue? So what then, it has to be on CNN? What makes one organization more credible than another?

I don't get to watch much news... But I subscribe to a lot of printed news. Yes, FOX is one of them. As well as CNN, NY Times, LA Time, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, AP, and several others.

Now, I will say that yes ALL news agencies have a bias (some are actually willing to admit it, most will not). When GW Bush was president, I didn't think that FOX reported or stuck to enough of the CRAP that Bush was signing into law. For example, they (FOX) did cover a lot of the "Patriot Act" and criticized him for it, but IMO they didn't cover it enough. I found myself watching a LOT of CNN back then. They were HIGHLY critical of Bush (as they are biased in favor of liberal beliefs). Does that mean what they are reporting wasn't valid? Does FOX being favorable to conservative beliefs not mean that what they are reporting isn't valid?

IMO you should be watching those agencies whom ARE critical of those in charge. Not those who are favorable to those in charge.

And IMO you couldn't blow these recent stories out of proportion enough! Benghazi, which left 4 US diplomat employees dead! You can't expose enough of that! Fast and Furious, where we were allowing the trafficing of weapons to drug cartels in Mexico with NO MEANS of tracking them, you can't expose that enough! The IRS specifically targeting conservative groups for audits and holding up review of applications for no reason other than being a conservative group! Again, expose it until they are all FIRED! The taping of phones and reading emails of news agencies (AP and FOX) which is a violation of the law! EXPOSE IT UNTIL THEY ARE FIRED! And I don't care WHO they are!

The IRS guy (Schumal SP?) was appointed by Bush, guess what, I DON'T CARE! Make sure he NEVER collects a government paycheck again and if possible, bring him up on criminal charges!


Quote:
Originally Posted by pbeaul View Post
In the past, prior to the sub-prime/credit crises stuff, there were always loan standards... That were mainly market driven because if you f^cked up, you (the bank/lending agency) were going to be on the hook for screwing up. If you ended up making more bad decisions than good ones you'd eventually be out of business.

What changed, is that greed took over, the risk was diversified away from the people/companies making the loans. The system of checks and balances fell apart and went on unchecked for so long that it created a huge bubble that put the entire financial system at risk.

So basically, a handful of people got rich off it, but most normal people (mostly responsible people) got screwed because the loose credit inflated prices and forced people to pay more money than they normally should have for homes... Which unfortunately caused many people to over extend themselves with the rationale that they were "investing" in the future, that their house was only going to increase in value so there was no point in worrying.
Absolutely! Couldn't be more correct!

This was the Clinton "everyone should own a home" dream. It was a effort paved in good intentions, but unfortunately such a thing is simply not feasible.

They should have known this was going to happen (the financial collapse) as that was the entire reason the banking regulations were put in place to begin with. What did they think would happen when they repealed such legislation? IDIOTS! Hell just look at when and why these regulations were put in place... Don't have to look very far. And I place every single person after that as well for not changing it back! ALL IDIOTS!

And the sadest thing is that it's even WORSE TODAY!!!!!!! We are setting ourselves up for an even bigger collapse in the future. :(

One of the critical results was the number of banks that held a high % of the debt in the US. Well as a result of the Dodd-Frank bill, there are an even SMALLER number of banks holding an even HIGHER amount of our debt that prior to the 2008 collapse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbeaul View Post
Is it really? I'll agree that it's a convenient distraction/deflection, but I disagree that it's "completely different"... If profiling is such a useful tactic for terrorists why is the idea of applying it elsewhere so taboo? In my mind there's not much difference between profiling for terrorists by the color of their skin/clothes/religion, and a tax collecting organization profiling people based on how they might ideologically feel about government taxation. Not that I support either.
I'm not saying I agree with profiling for ANY reason, but to play devils advocate I will play along. And there is a HUGE difference.

You wouldn't profile a religious or ethnic group because there were a lot of them, you would profile them because they are prone to doing things that violated the law. Those are DRASTICALLY different cases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbeaul View Post
Why do you think the additional scrutiny came about? Because there was an increasingly large number of companies abusing the tax exempt status for political ends, which is something that wasn't allowed. The additional scrutiny (and political profiling) was a response to that trend of abuse...
WRONG sir... You mention in another of your posts to a person that they "should do more research," might I say that you should take some of your own advice. These cases weren't investigations into abuse. These were cases being held up because of beliefs. And not just held up, but they were asked questions that had NOTHING to do with their business, taxes or tax exemptions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pbeaul View Post
To be perfectly honest, I haven't bothered to look into this scandal all that much. I've only had a chance to take a cursory look into it, and from what I've seen, 1/3 of the companies investigated were conservative sounding organizations. From my recollection, the other 2/3s did include liberal/progressive organizations, so I'm not convinced that your characterization is all that accurate.
I again suggest you do look into it more. But not from FOX, CNN, MSNBC or any other news agencies. I would suggest that you go back and actually watch the testimony that was given before the House Oversight Committee. You can get it on www.c-span.org. I watch them all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbeaul View Post
At this point, I don't care all that much about this manufactured Fox outrage. In 6 months it will come to light that someone screwed up and that yes there were some issues but that surprise things got blown out of proportion.

That does not mean I agree, or condone the IRS scrutinizing anyone for political motivations. I just think it's a dumbass taking some shortcuts, not some grand scheme to suppress conservative influence.
Being covered by FOX, doesn't make it manufactured, it was "manufactured" by the IRS. Not the agency reporting it.

So you don't think they were trying to suppress the conservative movement huh? So forcing groups to wait 3.5 years and asking question such as "turn over your groups meeting topics and meeting minutes" and "provide a list of members" from these conservative groups, all while approving groups such as the "Bus for Progress, Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment, Progress Florida" and MANY others were approved in mere months.

One group founded by a MAJOR Obama doner was approved in something like 6 weeks!

But yea, nothing to see here, just made up news from Fox... (it's a shame I didn't get any of this info from Fox...)


"at 8k i often get the tire to slip a bit(kinda like stoner in motogp) when i start to get on the throttle"
Niner1000RR is offline  
 
post #34 of 99 (permalink) Old 05-24-2013, 08:25 AM Thread Starter
AMA Supersport Racer
 
deluzrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: menifee ca
Posts: 1,151
Thanks: 29
Thanked 62 Times in 55 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niner1000RR View Post
Wait, so if it's on "FOX NEWS" it's not a legit issue? So what then, it has to be on CNN? What makes one organization more credible than another?

I don't get to watch much news... But I subscribe to a lot of printed news. Yes, FOX is one of them. As well as CNN, NY Times, LA Time, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, AP, and several others.

Now, I will say that yes ALL news agencies have a bias (some are actually willing to admit it, most will not). When GW Bush was president, I didn't think that FOX reported or stuck to enough of the CRAP that Bush was signing into law. For example, they (FOX) did cover a lot of the "Patriot Act" and criticized him for it, but IMO they didn't cover it enough. I found myself watching a LOT of CNN back then. They were HIGHLY critical of Bush (as they are biased in favor of liberal beliefs). Does that mean what they are reporting wasn't valid? Does FOX being favorable to conservative beliefs not mean that what they are reporting isn't valid?

IMO you should be watching those agencies whom ARE critical of those in charge. Not those who are favorable to those in charge.

And IMO you couldn't blow these recent stories out of proportion enough! Benghazi, which left 4 US diplomat employees dead! You can't expose enough of that! Fast and Furious, where we were allowing the trafficing of weapons to drug cartels in Mexico with NO MEANS of tracking them, you can't expose that enough! The IRS specifically targeting conservative groups for audits and holding up review of applications for no reason other than being a conservative group! Again, expose it until they are all FIRED! The taping of phones and reading emails of news agencies (AP and FOX) which is a violation of the law! EXPOSE IT UNTIL THEY ARE FIRED! And I don't care WHO they are!

The IRS guy (Schumal SP?) was appointed by Bush, guess what, I DON'T CARE! Make sure he NEVER collects a government paycheck again and if possible, bring him up on criminal charges!



Absolutely! Couldn't be more correct!

This was the Clinton "everyone should own a home" dream. It was a effort paved in good intentions, but unfortunately such a thing is simply not feasible.

They should have known this was going to happen (the financial collapse) as that was the entire reason the banking regulations were put in place to begin with. What did they think would happen when they repealed such legislation? IDIOTS! Hell just look at when and why these regulations were put in place... Don't have to look very far. And I place every single person after that as well for not changing it back! ALL IDIOTS!

And the sadest thing is that it's even WORSE TODAY!!!!!!! We are setting ourselves up for an even bigger collapse in the future. :(

One of the critical results was the number of banks that held a high % of the debt in the US. Well as a result of the Dodd-Frank bill, there are an even SMALLER number of banks holding an even HIGHER amount of our debt that prior to the 2008 collapse.


I'm not saying I agree with profiling for ANY reason, but to play devils advocate I will play along. And there is a HUGE difference.

You wouldn't profile a religious or ethnic group because there were a lot of them, you would profile them because they are prone to doing things that violated the law. Those are DRASTICALLY different cases.


WRONG sir... You mention in another of your posts to a person that they "should do more research," might I say that you should take some of your own advice. These cases weren't investigations into abuse. These were cases being held up because of beliefs. And not just held up, but they were asked questions that had NOTHING to do with their business, taxes or tax exemptions.



I again suggest you do look into it more. But not from FOX, CNN, MSNBC or any other news agencies. I would suggest that you go back and actually watch the testimony that was given before the House Oversight Committee. You can get it on www.c-span.org. I watch them all.


Being covered by FOX, doesn't make it manufactured, it was "manufactured" by the IRS. Not the agency reporting it.

So you don't think they were trying to suppress the conservative movement huh? So forcing groups to wait 3.5 years and asking question such as "turn over your groups meeting topics and meeting minutes" and "provide a list of members" from these conservative groups, all while approving groups such as the "Bus for Progress, Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment, Progress Florida" and MANY others were approved in mere months.

One group founded by a MAJOR Obama doner was approved in something like 6 weeks!

But yea, nothing to see here, just made up news from Fox... (it's a shame I didn't get any of this info from Fox...)
Liberal logic is to blame everything on Fox News and Bush. This is liberal logic 101



Sent from Motorcycle.com App
deluzrider is offline  
post #35 of 99 (permalink) Old 05-24-2013, 08:43 AM
AMA Supersport Racer
 
Moto_Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: California
Posts: 513
Thanks: 12
Thanked 65 Times in 51 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
This guy is your textbook liberal. It's not even worth the argument he's a lost cause.

Sent from Motorcycle.com Free App
Moto_Junkie is offline  
post #36 of 99 (permalink) Old 05-24-2013, 08:46 AM
Moto GP Racer
 
Niner1000RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Posts: 6,502
Thanks: 42
Thanked 223 Times in 189 Posts
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by deluzrider View Post
Liberal logic is to blame everything on Fox News and Bush. This is liberal logic 101



Sent from Motorcycle.com App
lol SO TRUE!!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moto_Junkie View Post
This guy is your textbook liberal. It's not even worth the argument he's a lost cause.

Sent from Motorcycle.com Free App
Probably right... But it's informative for people who are open minded.


"at 8k i often get the tire to slip a bit(kinda like stoner in motogp) when i start to get on the throttle"
Niner1000RR is offline  
post #37 of 99 (permalink) Old 05-24-2013, 08:51 AM
AMA Supersport Racer
 
Moto_Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: California
Posts: 513
Thanks: 12
Thanked 65 Times in 51 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
It's very informative indeed. There is Democrats in Congress more open minded.

Sent from Motorcycle.com Free App
Moto_Junkie is offline  
post #38 of 99 (permalink) Old 05-24-2013, 08:56 AM
World Superbike Racer
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Windsor, ON
Posts: 2,003
Thanks: 19
Thanked 69 Times in 42 Posts
Feedback Score: 2 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niner1000RR View Post
Wait, so if it's on "FOX NEWS" it's not a legit issue? So what then, it has to be on CNN? What makes one organization more credible than another?
If it's on Fox News it automatically loses points with me. I rank it up there with government propaganda news outlets, read with a large dose of skepticism. They have a terrible track record of hyping up stories. They're almost always excessively sensational.

I wasn't really calling you out, I don't have a problem with you, you generally don't have a problem calling a spade a spade. We just disagree on things, which is fine.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Niner1000RR View Post
I'm not saying I agree with profiling for ANY reason, but to play devils advocate I will play along. And there is a HUGE difference.

You wouldn't profile a religious or ethnic group because there were a lot of them, you would profile them because they are prone to doing things that violated the law. Those are DRASTICALLY different cases.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Both are breaking laws, I don't see how inconveniencing one or the other is a major difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Niner1000RR View Post
WRONG sir... You mention in another of your posts to a person that they "should do more research," might I say that you should take some of your own advice. These cases weren't investigations into abuse. These were cases being held up because of beliefs. And not just held up, but they were asked questions that had NOTHING to do with their business, taxes or tax exemptions.
I'll own it, you're right. I've read a few articles, but I haven't done that much research, as I have been pretty busy lately. Things I've read alluded to systemic abuse, but I have no interest in this topic so it's all yours. I'll wait 6 months from now to see if this scandal really was something worthy of this or if it was another Fox drama that everyone bought into.
pbeaul is offline  
post #39 of 99 (permalink) Old 05-24-2013, 09:10 AM
Moto GP Racer
 
Niner1000RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Posts: 6,502
Thanks: 42
Thanked 223 Times in 189 Posts
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbeaul View Post
If it's on Fox News it automatically loses points with me. I rank it up there with government propaganda news outlets, read with a large dose of skepticism. They have a terrible track record of hyping up stories. They're almost always excessively sensational.
Yet agencies such as ABC will intentionally MAKE up news! To the point where they will actually plant explosives in a vehicle to (to use your words) manufacture news... lol But by your statement, you'll most likely give more credit to them than Fox...

But like I said, I don't watch much news. I just find a comment like that hypocritical... But to each his own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbeaul View Post
I wasn't really calling you out, I don't have a problem with you, you generally don't have a problem calling a spade a spade. We just disagree on things, which is fine.
I wasn't saying you were sir ;)

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbeaul View Post
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Both are breaking laws, I don't see how inconveniencing one or the other is a major difference.
But where you're wrong is it's not against the law to APPLY for 501(c)4 status. What's illegal is to violate the regulations of a 501(c)4 company IF you're a practicing 501(c)4 group. What you're missing is these actions by the IRS were taken BEFORE granting the approval. These agencies hadn't done anything wrong. Therefore it wasn't illegal.

Where are IF we were arguing for profiling on an ethnic group (which we aren't-I hope and think) IT would be based on the illegal actions of such a group.

A VERY important key point there that you seem to be missing.



Quote:
Originally Posted by pbeaul View Post
I'll own it, you're right. I've read a few articles, but I haven't done that much research, as I have been pretty busy lately. Things I've read alluded to systemic abuse, but I have no interest in this topic so it's all yours. I'll wait 6 months from now to see if this scandal really was something worthy of this or if it was another Fox drama that everyone bought into.
Wait 6 months and then Clinton will just say "what difference does it make now" or when Carney says "that was a long time ago, lets move on"

This method allows for the continuing of such practices...

I suggest you watch these or listen to them on c-span.


"at 8k i often get the tire to slip a bit(kinda like stoner in motogp) when i start to get on the throttle"
Niner1000RR is offline  
post #40 of 99 (permalink) Old 05-24-2013, 09:20 AM
World Superbike Racer
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Windsor, ON
Posts: 2,003
Thanks: 19
Thanked 69 Times in 42 Posts
Feedback Score: 2 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niner1000RR View Post
Yet agencies such as ABC will intentionally MAKE up news! To the point where they will actually plant explosives in a vehicle to (to use your words) manufacture news... lol But by your statement, you'll most likely give more credit to them than Fox...

But like I said, I don't watch much news. I just find a comment like that hypocritical... But to each his own.
No, most mainstream news starts at like -5 points... Fox is like -10. I avoid most mainstream US news like the plague, much in the same way I avoid pravda or fars news, which I categorize similarly to fox (-10).






Quote:
Originally Posted by Niner1000RR View Post
Wait 6 months and then Clinton will just say "what difference does it make now" or when Carney says "that was a long time ago, lets move on"

This method allows for the continuing of such practices...

I suggest you watch these or listen to them on c-span.
Yea, I don't put much faith in high level politicians either...

If you t-up some links c-span I'd watch/listen to them when I get a chance, but not that interested to go hunt for them.
pbeaul is offline  
post #41 of 99 (permalink) Old 05-24-2013, 09:43 AM
Moto GP Racer
 
Niner1000RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Posts: 6,502
Thanks: 42
Thanked 223 Times in 189 Posts
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
IRS Part 1: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/CmteH
IRS Part 2: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Scrut

You can watch all of them on their website. Benghazi, Fast & Furious, as well as the IRS stuff.

No need to trust some news agency. You might hold some higher than others, but they ALL have a bias, therefore they should ALL be at -10.


"at 8k i often get the tire to slip a bit(kinda like stoner in motogp) when i start to get on the throttle"
Niner1000RR is offline  
post #42 of 99 (permalink) Old 05-24-2013, 10:20 AM
Moto GP Racer
 
TheX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Austin Texas
Posts: 14,333
Images: 2
Thanks: 129
Thanked 2,461 Times in 1,716 Posts
Feedback Score: 5 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by deluzrider View Post
Liberal logic is to blame everything on Fox News and Bush. This is liberal logic 101
Sad but true.
TheX is offline  
post #43 of 99 (permalink) Old 05-26-2013, 07:44 AM
Pocketbike Racer
 
AbnInf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 420
Thanks: 0
Thanked 61 Times in 48 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbeaul View Post
If it's on Fox News it automatically loses points with me. I rank it up there with government propaganda news outlets, read with a large dose of skepticism.
Out of all the major networks, which one do you recommend? Never had a liberal give me a straight up answer yet. Maybe you can be the first.

K8 GSXR750
K7 CBR600RR

AbnInf is offline  
post #44 of 99 (permalink) Old 05-26-2013, 07:41 PM Thread Starter
AMA Supersport Racer
 
deluzrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: menifee ca
Posts: 1,151
Thanks: 29
Thanked 62 Times in 55 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbnInf View Post
Out of all the major networks, which one do you recommend? Never had a liberal give me a straight up answer yet. Maybe you can be the first.
I doubt you'll get an answer


Sent from Motorcycle.com App
deluzrider is offline  
post #45 of 99 (permalink) Old 05-27-2013, 07:05 AM
Pocketbike Racer
 
AbnInf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 420
Thanks: 0
Thanked 61 Times in 48 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by deluzrider View Post
I doubt you'll get an answer


Sent from Motorcycle.com App
Eh, most watch MSNBC or CNN but they don't want to answer with that because they know they will get owned with facts about how biased they are. They see the trap and they avoid it haha. Their main beef with Fox is they hate the fact there is one single news network that isn't dominated with leftists, and that it has the highest ratings by far.

K8 GSXR750
K7 CBR600RR

AbnInf is offline  
post #46 of 99 (permalink) Old 05-27-2013, 07:38 AM
AMA Supersport Racer
 
gveliopoulos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 955
Thanks: 156
Thanked 49 Times in 39 Posts
Feedback Score: 2 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbeaul View Post
No, most mainstream news starts at like -5 points... Fox is like -10. I avoid most mainstream US news like the plague, much in the same way I avoid pravda or fars news, which I categorize similarly to fox (-10).
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbnInf View Post
Out of all the major networks, which one do you recommend? Never had a liberal give me a straight up answer yet. Maybe you can be the first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbnInf View Post
Eh, most watch MSNBC or CNN but they don't want to answer with that because they know they will get owned with facts about how biased they are. They see the trap and they avoid it haha. Their main beef with Fox is they hate the fact there is one single news network that isn't dominated with leftists, and that it has the highest ratings by far.
why would you care what he recommends out of all the major networks when he already said he rates them at a -5? seems pointless.

and just so you know, fox has the lowest ratings according to the pew research center.
gveliopoulos is offline  
post #47 of 99 (permalink) Old 05-27-2013, 11:18 PM Thread Starter
AMA Supersport Racer
 
deluzrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: menifee ca
Posts: 1,151
Thanks: 29
Thanked 62 Times in 55 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by gveliopoulos View Post
why would you care what he recommends out of all the major networks when he already said he rates them at a -5? seems pointless.

and just so you know, fox has the lowest ratings according to the pew research center.
Oh cool you can pull a poll off the Internet. Because those are always accurate.


Sent from Motorcycle.com App
deluzrider is offline  
post #48 of 99 (permalink) Old 05-28-2013, 10:03 AM
Mad Chemist
 
WherzRoony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Central New York State, The Hills
Posts: 5,798
Images: 57
Thanks: 37
Thanked 83 Times in 64 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
ALL THE NEWS YOU NEED RIGHT IS HERE:

www.drudgereport.com

I Like My Guns Like Obama Likes His Voters: Undocumented

WherzRoony is offline  
post #49 of 99 (permalink) Old 05-28-2013, 12:08 PM Thread Starter
AMA Supersport Racer
 
deluzrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: menifee ca
Posts: 1,151
Thanks: 29
Thanked 62 Times in 55 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by WherzRoony View Post
ALL THE NEWS YOU NEED RIGHT IS HERE:

www.drudgereport.com
I am also a fan of drudgereport


Sent from Motorcycle.com App
deluzrider is offline  
post #50 of 99 (permalink) Old 05-29-2013, 06:26 AM
Pocketbike Racer
 
AbnInf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 420
Thanks: 0
Thanked 61 Times in 48 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by gveliopoulos View Post
and just so you know, fox has the lowest ratings according to the pew research center.
Just so you know, anyone can find a poll that says what they want it to say.

Quote:
New Poll Finds CNN Far Less Believable Cable Channel Than Fox News
By Randy Hall | April 29, 2013 | 19:30

It used to be that whenever an important news story broke, cable television viewers would quickly turn to CNN for must-see coverage of what was happening. However, according to a poll conducted regarding the five-day coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing, that is definitely no longer the case.

The survey, which was conducted by the liberal Huffington Post website and the international marketing agency YouGov, determined that former titan CNN came in as far less trustworthy than Fox News over which was the most believable cable news channel.

During the poll, which was based on interviews of 1,000 adults last Friday and Saturday, the bad news for CNN began when people were asked how believable the news was from that channel during the Boston bombings. The biggest response was 35 percent stating “I don't watch CNN.”

Of course, all cable news outlets saw their viewership rise sharply because of their coverage of the bombing and subsequent search for the terrorists behind it.

As a result, 38 percent of the respondents said the channel was “very” or “somewhat” believable, and 21 percent said it was “not very” or “not at all believable.”

Also, MSNBC had no reason to smile since the poll indicated that 42 percent of the people polled “don't watch” the channel. In addition, the liberal channel fared poorly in the “very” or “somewhat” believable category with 35 percent.

However, the survey brought good news for the Fox News Channel, which had a 50 percent rating in the categories of “very” and “somewhat” believable even though 28 percent of those polled said they don't watch the cable news outlet, which is far less than its competitors.

In fact, Bill O'Reilly -- host of the top-rated news channel program -- stated that The O'Reilly Factor drew record ratings on Friday, April 19, when law-enforcement officials hunted for and captured 19-year-old terrorism suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

“There is just no question that this is devastating news for CNN,” stated John Nolte of Brietbart.com, who earlier this month declared that Fox is now “The Most Trusted Name in News.”

During the five-day manhunt for the bombers of the Boston Marathon, Fox News was the top-rated channel in all of cable TV, averaging 2.874 million viewers during prime time and 1.77 million for the full day.

While CNN came in a distant third with 1.985 million at night and 1.329 million overall, the period was particularly bad for MSNBC, which finished with a 19th place showing of fewer than a million viewers during the evening hours and fewer than 600,000 all day.

It didn't help when CNN stumbled several times during the five-day period, including a report from John King stating that a Saudi national had been arrested even though that hadn't happened. King later called his mistake “embarrassing.”

As if that wasn't bad enough, the network posted a story on its website entitled “Boston Marathon bombs have hallmarks of 'lone wolf' devices, experts say,” in which an anonymous senior U.S. counter-terrorism investigator was quoted as saying that pressure cooker bombs have been “a signature of extreme right-wing individuals in the United States.”

This turn of events isn't a surprise to readers of NewsBusters who learned in January that the Fox News Channel ended 2012 with top ratings for the 11th straight year.

Nevertheless, it's a pleasant change for those of us who watch Fox News to hear something positive about the channel and its viewers, as opposed to the "studies" and "hoaxes" accusing us of being "misinformed" or "stupid" even though the ratings show that millions of us prefer our news to be "fair and balanced" instead of just leaning in one direction.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/randy-h...#ixzz2UfyYKJh6

K8 GSXR750
K7 CBR600RR

AbnInf is offline  
post #51 of 99 (permalink) Old 05-29-2013, 06:43 AM
AMA Supersport Racer
 
gveliopoulos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 955
Thanks: 156
Thanked 49 Times in 39 Posts
Feedback Score: 2 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbnInf View Post
Just so you know, anyone can find a poll that says what they want it to say.
You think i tried to find a poll saying Fox news sux? quite frankly, i don't care at all how Fox is ranked. I didn't want any poll to say one thing or another. I simply researched for one minute to see if that assessment is true and i posted what i found.

you give me new information. Fantastic! i'm happy to be informed. only problem is, the info you posted says how Fox has higher ratings as a result of the Boston bombings...this was very recent to base figures off of compared to a much longer span of time. from your article, it sounds like ppl are basing their opinions on the news networks primarily based upon one story that happend recently... But fine, good for Fox.

you said "that [Fox] ... has the highest ratings by far." sweet. you forgot to mention "as of a month ago. but i appreciate the information. i did not know that. but im not going to put all my eggs in that basket.

no one should be so tied down to one news network. You know its bias, that's why you watch it (i assume BECAUSE it's conservative). Fox was originally created to be a conservative mainstream outlet to combat all the liberal networks. Its very orgination was one of bias. Again, i reiterate, i dont care how fox ranks. no need to play the pity card about how everyone gangs up on fox. i'm not. i simply found a poll and posted. you found an article and posted it. Good! this is what we want. now we are learning and engaging in productive dialogue.

a lot of ppl on here need to stop assuming that just because ppl criticize Fox it means they are liberals and hate conservatives/Fox. this is not always the case.

Fox is bias and as a result deserves criticism just like all the other major news networks.

Last edited by gveliopoulos; 05-29-2013 at 06:53 AM.
gveliopoulos is offline  
post #52 of 99 (permalink) Old 05-29-2013, 08:09 AM Thread Starter
AMA Supersport Racer
 
deluzrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: menifee ca
Posts: 1,151
Thanks: 29
Thanked 62 Times in 55 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by gveliopoulos View Post
You think i tried to find a poll saying Fox news sux? quite frankly, i don't care at all how Fox is ranked. I didn't want any poll to say one thing or another. I simply researched for one minute to see if that assessment is true and i posted what i found.

you give me new information. Fantastic! i'm happy to be informed. only problem is, the info you posted says how Fox has higher ratings as a result of the Boston bombings...this was very recent to base figures off of compared to a much longer span of time. from your article, it sounds like ppl are basing their opinions on the news networks primarily based upon one story that happend recently... But fine, good for Fox.

you said "that [Fox] ... has the highest ratings by far." sweet. you forgot to mention "as of a month ago. but i appreciate the information. i did not know that. but im not going to put all my eggs in that basket.

no one should be so tied down to one news network. You know its bias, that's why you watch it (i assume BECAUSE it's conservative). Fox was originally created to be a conservative mainstream outlet to combat all the liberal networks. Its very orgination was one of bias. Again, i reiterate, i dont care how fox ranks. no need to play the pity card about how everyone gangs up on fox. i'm not. i simply found a poll and posted. you found an article and posted it. Good! this is what we want. now we are learning and engaging in productive dialogue.

a lot of ppl on here need to stop assuming that just because ppl criticize Fox it means they are liberals and hate conservatives/Fox. this is not always the case.

Fox is bias and as a result deserves criticism just like all the other major news networks.
It's ok. Calm down. Left wing liberals are supposed to be peaceful. Right?


Sent from Motorcycle.com App
deluzrider is offline  
post #53 of 99 (permalink) Old 05-29-2013, 08:23 AM
AMA Supersport Racer
 
gveliopoulos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 955
Thanks: 156
Thanked 49 Times in 39 Posts
Feedback Score: 2 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by deluzrider View Post
It's ok. Calm down. Left wing liberals are supposed to be peaceful. Right?


Sent from Motorcycle.com App
i'm calm...

you think im a left wing liberal? ite.
gveliopoulos is offline  
post #54 of 99 (permalink) Old 05-29-2013, 10:19 AM Thread Starter
AMA Supersport Racer
 
deluzrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: menifee ca
Posts: 1,151
Thanks: 29
Thanked 62 Times in 55 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by gveliopoulos View Post
i'm calm...

you think im a left wing liberal? ite.
I'd say there is a strong possibility of it. Hatred of the truth is a sure sign of the left side.


Sent from Motorcycle.com App
deluzrider is offline  
post #55 of 99 (permalink) Old 05-29-2013, 10:21 AM
Moto GP Racer
 
Niner1000RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Posts: 6,502
Thanks: 42
Thanked 223 Times in 189 Posts
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by gveliopoulos View Post
why would you care what he recommends out of all the major networks when he already said he rates them at a -5? seems pointless.

and just so you know, fox has the lowest ratings according to the pew research center.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbnInf View Post
Just so you know, anyone can find a poll that says what they want it to say.
LMAO

I was about to say the SAME THING! hahaha

That was PEW last year, this is PEW this year.



And next year it will be something different!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by gveliopoulos View Post
I simply researched for one minute to see if that assessment is true and i posted what i found.
As did I... lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by gveliopoulos View Post
you give me new information. Fantastic! i'm happy to be informed. only problem is, the info you posted says how Fox has higher ratings as a result of the Boston bombings...this was very recent to base figures off of compared to a much longer span of time. from your article, it sounds like ppl are basing their opinions on the news networks primarily based upon one story that happend recently... But fine, good for Fox.
Why should it be based on ratings at all? Ratings has nothing to do with it. Or at least it shouldn't!

Quote:
Originally Posted by gveliopoulos View Post
Fox is bias and as a result deserves criticism just like all the other major news networks.
Absolutely! The only problem is, MOST don't realize, or care to accept the fact that "THEIR" news source is also biased. They ALL are!

Get your info from the source, so when you do hear or see what these biased agencies report, you are able to see it for what it is.


"at 8k i often get the tire to slip a bit(kinda like stoner in motogp) when i start to get on the throttle"
Niner1000RR is offline  
post #56 of 99 (permalink) Old 05-29-2013, 10:31 AM
AMA Supersport Racer
 
gveliopoulos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 955
Thanks: 156
Thanked 49 Times in 39 Posts
Feedback Score: 2 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by deluzrider View Post
I'd say there is a strong possibility of it. Hatred of the truth is a sure sign of the left side.


Sent from Motorcycle.com App
fantastic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Niner1000RR View Post
LMAO

I was about to say the SAME THING! hahaha

That was PEW last year, this is PEW this year.



And next year it will be something different!!



As did I... lol


Why should it be based on ratings at all? Ratings has nothing to do with it. Or at least it shouldn't!


Absolutely! The only problem is, MOST don't realize, or care to accept the fact that "THEIR" news source is also biased. They ALL are!

Get your info from the source, so when you do hear or see what these biased agencies report, you are able to see it for what it is.
i agree with you 100%. i just want to clarify my intentions. i posted that poll as a reply to somebody saying Fox "has the highest ratings by far." both my "research" and your "research" proved otherwise. That was the sole purpose of my posts. i think ratings have nothing to do with anything. im just engaging in the conversation the member started. I never said the stats or polls were correct. i am skeptical of most "research' conducted by mainstream outlets. Im glad i can finally reach some common ground with someone on this thread. and for that i thank you niner.

Last edited by gveliopoulos; 05-29-2013 at 10:42 AM.
gveliopoulos is offline  
post #57 of 99 (permalink) Old 05-29-2013, 10:35 AM
AMA Supersport Racer
 
gveliopoulos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 955
Thanks: 156
Thanked 49 Times in 39 Posts
Feedback Score: 2 reviews
It seems to be common around here that if you're not republican, ppl automatically assume you're "a far left liberal."

to be honest, the polarization of american between Dems and Reps is the primary problem to our current state of affairs as a nation as a whole. i highly recommend anyone reading this to read President George Washington's Farewell Address. political parties only divide. they pit one side against the other. its their very nature. if you disagree with me, i urge you read his speech. One of the greatest men in all history.
gveliopoulos is offline  
post #58 of 99 (permalink) Old 05-29-2013, 10:50 AM
Moto GP Racer
 
Niner1000RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Posts: 6,502
Thanks: 42
Thanked 223 Times in 189 Posts
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by gveliopoulos View Post
i agree with you 100%. i just want to clarify my intentions. i posted that poll as a reply to somebody saying Fox "has the highest ratings by far." both my "research" and your "research" proved otherwise.
Actually no, you or I didn't prove ANYTHING with regards to which agency has the "highest ratings by far," in fact the poster was correct. Fox does have the highest ratings, by far.

We were posting about bias relativity as who tells the truth. That has nothing to do with ratings.

Want the ratings numbers?

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/201...4-2013/184389/

Total for Friday May 24th for example:
Fox: 1,996

with the next closest being HLN at: 696

You can combine ALL the other major news agencies that are typically published and you barely beat touch Fox. At: 2,236

But again, that's talking RATINGS. Which he was correct. But my point is that this means nothing as far as what's true or not. Just merely tells us who watches what.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gveliopoulos View Post
It seems to be common around here that if you're not republican, ppl automatically assume you're "a far left liberal."
I think it's just that a person is typically one or the other. There aren't many that sit objectively in the middle. So when someone makes a comment, like you did (not that it was wrong) it's typically going to result in people thinking you are of the opposite belief.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gveliopoulos View Post
to be honest, the polarization of american between Dems and Reps is the primary problem to our current state of affairs as a nation as a whole. i highly recommend anyone reading this to read President George Washington's Farewell Address. political parties only divide. they pit one side against the other. its their very nature. if you disagree with me, i urge you read his speech. One of the greatest men in all history.
I will agree with this, the problem is when the president of the country is instigating it, it's hard to think anything but partisan bickering is going to come as a result... Hence the IRS scandals (assuming the president had nothing to do with it).


"at 8k i often get the tire to slip a bit(kinda like stoner in motogp) when i start to get on the throttle"
Niner1000RR is offline  
post #59 of 99 (permalink) Old 05-29-2013, 11:03 AM
AMA Supersport Racer
 
gveliopoulos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 955
Thanks: 156
Thanked 49 Times in 39 Posts
Feedback Score: 2 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niner1000RR View Post
Actually no, you or I didn't prove ANYTHING with regards to which agency has the "highest ratings by far," in fact the poster was correct. Fox does have the highest ratings, by far.

We were posting about bias relativity as who tells the truth. That has nothing to do with ratings.

Want the ratings numbers?

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/201...4-2013/184389/

Total for Friday May 24th for example:
Fox: 1,996

with the next closest being HLN at: 696

You can combine ALL the other major news agencies that are typically published and you barely beat touch Fox. At: 2,236

But again, that's talking RATINGS. Which he was correct. But my point is that this means nothing as far as what's true or not. Just merely tells us who watches what.


I think it's just that a person is typically one or the other. There aren't many that sit objectively in the middle. So when someone makes a comment, like you did (not that it was wrong) it's typically going to result in people thinking you are of the opposite belief.


I will agree with this, the problem is when the president of the country is instigating it, it's hard to think anything but partisan bickering is going to come as a result... Hence the IRS scandals (assuming the president had nothing to do with it).
ahhhhh. i see. he was talking about t.v. ratings...yeah im sorry that was my fault. you are right.

...but yeah, that doesnt make any sense to argue "ratings" on his part so i assumed he meant something along the lines of reliability that's why i went that route. but its my fault for not using the correct language. Thank you for correcting me.

ok so that guy was correct that fox has the highest t.v. ratings. but like you said, what does that prove? a lot of ppl watch so it means its credible? what an awful argument. i had no idea that's what he was advocating.

i hear what you're saying about the instigating. but still. this two party system is absolutely appalling. if we look at the founding fathers and their division between Federalists and Anti Federalists, they would make the Dems and Reps platforms look like socialist movements. the federalists (the "democrats" of their time) definition of "bigger" gov't is immeasurably smaller than the current Republican definition. We are so far off from what we were meant to be and we are disillusioned by all this bickering. we should really be ashamed.
gveliopoulos is offline  
post #60 of 99 (permalink) Old 05-29-2013, 11:09 AM
Moto GP Racer
 
Niner1000RR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Posts: 6,502
Thanks: 42
Thanked 223 Times in 189 Posts
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by gveliopoulos View Post
ahhhhh. i see. he was talking about t.v. ratings...yeah im sorry that was my fault. you are right.

...but yeah, that doesnt make any sense to argue "ratings" on his part so i assumed he meant something along the lines of reliability that's why i went that route. but its my fault for not using the correct language. Thank you for correcting me.

ok so that guy was correct that fox has the highest t.v. ratings. but like you said, what does that prove? a lot of ppl watch so it means its credible? what an awful argument. i had no idea that's what he was advocating.
lol that was my point ;)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gveliopoulos View Post
i hear what you're saying about the instigating. but still. this two party system is absolutely appalling. if we look at the founding fathers and their division between Federalists and Anti Federalists, they would make the Dems and Reps platforms look like socialist movements. the federalists (the "democrats" of their time) definition of "bigger" gov't is immeasurably smaller than the current Republican definition. We are so far off from what we were meant to be and we are disillusioned by all this bickering. we should really be ashamed.
But it's not a 2 party system, it's just that WE the people only vote for one of 2 parties. We tend to blame the politicians for the fact that we have this (primarily) 2 party system, when it's US that are to blame.

People run as 3rd party every year, but they get virtually ZERO votes. So what would we expect out of politicians running the following year? They are going to go where they have a chance.

And yes, I agree 100%, BOTH Repubs (with a capital R) and Dems are socialists by constitutional standards, which are the standards we should hold ourselves to. But sadly do not :(


"at 8k i often get the tire to slip a bit(kinda like stoner in motogp) when i start to get on the throttle"
Niner1000RR is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the 600RR.net forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome