Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: daniel49
.2 is not much of a gain and there have been a lot of claims of inflated subscriber bases/
In addition it is still way behind usa today and wall street journal
http://www.infoplease.com/ipea/A0004420.html
liberal bias? even the NY times admits that
[edit] Self-examination of bias
In summer 2004, the newspaper's then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent, wrote a piece on the Times' alleged liberal bias.[28] He concluded that the Times did have a liberal bias in coverage of certain social issues, gay marriage being the example he used. He claimed that this bias reflected the paper's cosmopolitanism, which arose naturally from its roots as a hometown paper of New York City.
Okrent did not comment at length on the issue of bias in coverage of "hard news", such as fiscal policy, foreign policy, or civil liberties. However, he noted that the paper's coverage of the Iraq war was, among other things, insufficiently critical of the George W. Bush administration (see below). In May 2005 Okrent was succeeded by Byron Calame.
Additionally in a post-Jayson Blair report to Bill Keller,[29] a committee of Times employees noted:
Nothing we recommend should be seen as endorsing a retreat from tough-minded reporting of abuses of power by public or private institutions. In part because the Times ' editorial page is clearly liberal, the news pages do need to make more effort not to seem monolit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times#Self-examination_of_bias
I'm not sure how your post is relevant to what I wrote. I suggest you read it again, this time for comprehension. I never said that the NYT was the largest paper in the country. I only took issue with the fact that you said that it's subscription base was shrinking, I cited a reputable third party that said it wasn't.
I also never said that the NYT was not a leftist paper. (although I do think that reports of its bias are greatly exaggerated). I said that newspaper circulation was shrinking by and large due to fundamental changes in the ways that Americans get their news, not due to people being turned off by the editorial slant. This is supported by the broad based, 20 year decline of newspapers regardless of editorial ideology.
I know that as soon as you see a posting defending something about the NYT, your brain probably immediately jumps to that argument that's been had a million times over the possibility of editorial bias there. Unfortunately for you, that's not what's being talked about today. In fact, while its not relevant to what I said its REALLY not relevant to this thread.
My original point (that was relevant) was that people don't want to read about that sort of news... because it is boring. It's the same reason why good news usually ends up on page 5, and the missing baby is front page. Bad things are interesting, good ones... usually not so much.
Edit: Oh yeah, and no matter what your ideology Dick Cheney shooting an old man in the face was insanely hilarious.
now your boring me am cancelling you from thread
I'll take that as "I don't want to get owned anymore."
Originally posted by: daniel49
cheney $6.87 million dollars to charity in 2005
Gore when he was VP in 1997? $367.00
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1623660/posts
null
"Liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable"
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Vic He knows the way that we all should live, and is so certain that it is the right way that he has no moral issue with forcing it on the rest of us. If we disagree, it is only because (in his mind) we are evil, and not because of a difference of opinion as to what is actually in the "common good."
That's the best summary of Rot, yet.
In his mind, from what I can tell, is that all people are inherently evil. Greedy, self-minded people. And they always will be. He sees this as being a realist, rather than what he really is, a pessimist. Thus his quote in your sig, which I, and I'm sure others as well, find almost terrifying, although unfortunately, maybe not surprising.
Those who have no faith in themselves rarely have faith in others.
It is sad, really. I kinda feel sorry for him.
Both of you are idiots, he used a misquote of mine.
"It takes authority to delegate fairness in a state."
Of course vic being full of sh1t as usual jumped at the opportunity to call someone out like the drama queen he is over something mistyped.
And noone is "Forcing" anything on you, you can vote on what you please, I don't hate anyone in this forum, but I think a few of you are paranoid wingnuts listening to some pretty stupid unbalanced people.
Vic, go fvckoff already, what are you going to do? throw a e-thug fit again and threaten to kick someones ass in here?
You are a dumb ass for quoting people in your sig, but it figures you have nothing except to try to misconstrue and throw up stupid catchphrases like liberties to naive followers of right wing circle jerk.
Originally posted by: Vic
As a reactionary socialist, rot is a bit confused over the distinctions of what the noted political philosopher Isaiah Berlin coined as positive and negative liberties. Positive liberty, which rot most often triumphs but which is questionable as whether it is actually a liberty per se, is a guarantee of opportunity, or the guarnateed freedom to achieve certain ends. Negative liberty OTOH is described as the freedom from unwarranted coercion, which is what most people most often think of when they think of liberty and freedom, i.e. the right to be able to choose for oneself.
Originally posted by: Lothar
Tax write offs...
My family donated about 12-16 bags of used clothes and 4 bags of shoes to the Salvation Army 2 years ago...
We got at least $2000 off our taxes...MUCH more than what those bag of "used" trash were worth.
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Vic
As a reactionary socialist, rot is a bit confused over the distinctions of what the noted political philosopher Isaiah Berlin coined as positive and negative liberties. Positive liberty, which rot most often triumphs but which is questionable as whether it is actually a liberty per se, is a guarantee of opportunity, or the guarnateed freedom to achieve certain ends. Negative liberty OTOH is described as the freedom from unwarranted coercion, which is what most people most often think of when they think of liberty and freedom, i.e. the right to be able to choose for oneself.
There is no positive and negative liberty, Isaiah Berlin wrong, more libertarian debunkage:
Libertarian myth:
"Positive Liberty is the idea that you are free to do certain things. For example, I have the right to vote for whoever I want."
"Negative Liberty is the idea that everyone should be free to do however he pleases. Negative liberty is saying, "there is no single correct way to do things, everyone should do as they please."
What we have is "positive liberty," makes seem like the default is considered to be a state of no rights, to which specific rights are then applied by the governing body. "Negative liberty," by contrast, seems to start with a baseline state wherein everything is considered a right, and from that point restrictions may or may not be applied. The whole concept is pure libertarianism semantics.
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Vic
As a reactionary socialist, rot is a bit confused over the distinctions of what the noted political philosopher Isaiah Berlin coined as positive and negative liberties. Positive liberty, which rot most often triumphs but which is questionable as whether it is actually a liberty per se, is a guarantee of opportunity, or the guarnateed freedom to achieve certain ends. Negative liberty OTOH is described as the freedom from unwarranted coercion, which is what most people most often think of when they think of liberty and freedom, i.e. the right to be able to choose for oneself.
There is no positive and negative liberty, Isaiah Berlin wrong, more libertarian debunkage:
Libertarian myth:
"Positive Liberty is the idea that you are free to do certain things. For example, I have the right to vote for whoever I want."
"Negative Liberty is the idea that everyone should be free to do however he pleases. Negative liberty is saying, "there is no single correct way to do things, everyone should do as they please."
What we have is "positive liberty," makes seem like the default is considered to be a state of no rights, to which specific rights are then applied by the governing body. "Negative liberty," by contrast, seems to start with a baseline state wherein everything is considered a right, and from that point restrictions may or may not be applied. The whole concept is pure libertarianism semantics.
Sorry, rot, but I'm going to have to take the word of an Oxford scholar who is widely regarded as being one of the greatest liberal philosophers of the 20th century over yours. I know... it's just not fair. Think of his academic achievement the same as if he were rich. Why should he get more credence than you, just because he achieved it? Obviously, it's all lies and conspiracy, right?
Originally posted by: bamacre
Due to your lack of bad memory,...
http://www.majortoker.com/images/rot_dumbass.jpg
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Vic
As a reactionary socialist, rot is a bit confused over the distinctions of what the noted political philosopher Isaiah Berlin coined as positive and negative liberties. Positive liberty, which rot most often triumphs but which is questionable as whether it is actually a liberty per se, is a guarantee of opportunity, or the guarnateed freedom to achieve certain ends. Negative liberty OTOH is described as the freedom from unwarranted coercion, which is what most people most often think of when they think of liberty and freedom, i.e. the right to be able to choose for oneself.
There is no positive and negative liberty, Isaiah Berlin wrong, more libertarian debunkage:
Libertarian myth:
"Positive Liberty is the idea that you are free to do certain things. For example, I have the right to vote for whoever I want."
"Negative Liberty is the idea that everyone should be free to do however he pleases. Negative liberty is saying, "there is no single correct way to do things, everyone should do as they please."
What we have is "positive liberty," makes seem like the default is considered to be a state of no rights, to which specific rights are then applied by the governing body. "Negative liberty," by contrast, seems to start with a baseline state wherein everything is considered a right, and from that point restrictions may or may not be applied. The whole concept is pure libertarianism semantics.
Sorry, rot, but I'm going to have to take the word of an Oxford scholar who is widely regarded as being one of the greatest liberal philosophers of the 20th century over yours. I know... it's just not fair. Think of his academic achievement the same as if he were rich. Why should he get more credence than you, just because he achieved it? Obviously, it's all lies and conspiracy, right?
So in other words you will not back your bs up.
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: daniel49
cheney $6.87 million dollars to charity in 2005
Gore when he was VP in 1997? $367.00
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1623660/posts
null
"Liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable"
Gore gave all the proceeds from "Inconvenient Truth" movie and book to charity. That's a lot more than $6.87 million. So you have just been sold another lie by rightwing blogs. Congrats.
Well it was a guess, a bad one at that granted.:frown: So from this topic we are to assume that all conservatives give more than liberals.. oh wait, we are just talking about a minority of them even if it's a larger minority than liberals who give to charity. I don't believe that conservatives, especially those here should crow to much about it as the likelyhood they are not part of the demographic that's being discussed. The same goes for Liberals in this forum, I bet the vast majority of them don't give money to charity.Originally posted by: bobdelt
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Tax write offs.
yes, paying 100 bucks to save 40.... brilliant!
Originally posted by: daniel49
cheney $6.87 million dollars to charity in 2005
Gore when he was VP in 1997? $367.00
[/L]
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: bamacre
Due to your lack of bad memory,...
http://www.majortoker.com/images/rot_dumbass.jpg
:laugh:
Originally posted by: daniel49
Topic Title: If liberals care more for the little guy, why do conservatives give more to charity?
The Republican Congress sure knows how to take care of its friends. This is tax weekend in the United States and in celebration of the annual ritual, the White House released President Bush's and Vice-President Cheney's tax returns. The VP may be a lousy shot, but he sure can hit the target buried deep in the tax code. The VP was one of the prime beneficiaries...of the special provision in the Katrina legislation that suspended the 50% of adjusted gross income limitation on charitable contributions of cash for the 2005 tax year. And guess what, most, if not all, of the VP's charitable contributions went to causes unrelated Hurricane Katrina relief (unless of course, some of Tulane's students temporarily transferred to the University of Wyoming). The arrangement is ably described in a memorandum from the VP's lawyers, Williams and Connolly LLP. The relevant portion provides as follows:
The Cheneys' adjusted gross income in 2005 was $8,819,006 which was largely the result of the exercise by an independent gift administrator of stock options that had been irrevocably set aside in 2001 for charity. The Cheneys donated $6,869,655 to charity in 2005 from the exercise of these stock options under the terms of the Gift Administration Agreement and from Mrs. Cheney's book royalties from Simon & Schuster on her books America: A Patriotic Primer, A is for Abigail: An Almanac of Amazing American Woman, and When Washington Crossed the Delaware: A Wintertime Story for Young Patriots. As provided in the Gift Administration Agreement, gifts were made to three designated charities named in that Agreement. The Cheneys' return was filed on March 20, 2006.
During the course of 2005 the Cheneys paid $2,468,566 in taxes through withholding and estimated tax payments. Taxes were withheld from their salaries and from the net proceeds of stock options that were exercised under the Gift Administration Agreement. Given that the option proceeds were dedicated to charity, there was a substantial over withholding in 2005 from the income attributable to the exercise of the stock options, which reduced the amount available for charity in 2005
To enable the gift administrator to maximize the charitable gifts in 2005, the year in which the options were exercised, the Cheneys wrote a personal check in December 2005 to the gift administrator in the amount of $2,331,400. That amount, combined with the net proceeds from the stock options, was given to the three designated charities by the gift administrator. As a consequence, the Cheneys are entitled to a refund of $1,938,930. This refund returns the Cheneys to a neutral position of no personal financial benefit or financial detriment resulting from the transactions under the Gift Administration Agreement. Thus, the Cheneys received no financial benefit from the stock options. The transactions were tax neutral to the Cheneys. The amount of taxes paid by the Cheneys from their income, other than the income from the exercise of the stock options, was the equivalent of what they would have paid if the options had not been exercised.
In a press release of March 5, 2001, the Cheneys reported that they had established the Gift Administration Agreement on January 18, 2001 to donate all net after tax proceeds from various stock options that the Vice President had earned at Halliburton and for their service on the boards of directors of other companies to three designated charities--George Washington University Medical Faculty Associates, Inc. for the benefit of the Cardiothoracic Institute, the University of Wyoming for the benefit of the University of Wyoming Foundation, and Capital Partners for Education for the benefit of low-income high school students in the Washington, D.C. area. By entering into the Gift Administration Agreement the Cheneys divested themselves of the economic benefit of the options and granted the gift administrator full discretion, power and control over the options. The Agreement directed the gift administrator to maximize the gifts to the three charities while avoiding financial or after tax benefit or detriment to the Cheneys.
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: bamacre
Due to your lack of bad memory,...
http://www.majortoker.com/images/rot_dumbass.jpg
:laugh:
Once again for the fools: authoritarian was not what I meant, it was a typo.
It was supposed to be "It takes authority to keep a society civil" as in rebuking corporate idiotic utopian fantasys like vics.
I was busy or something, after around 8k posts over years on this forum mistakes happen, so sue me you wankers.
You and vic are both really pathetic misrepresenting something I said was a typo, but thats is pretty expected of your ilk.
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Cheney is no saint and he is about as charitable as he is courteous to Dem Senators on the floor of Congress.
Let see if the donations keep coming AFTER he is out of public office and is no longer constrained by rules that dictate that he cannot benefit financially while he is in the position that he is.
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Cheney is no saint and he is about as charitable as he is courteous to Dem Senators on the floor of Congress.
Let see if the donations keep coming AFTER he is out of public office and is no longer constrained by rules that dictate that he cannot benefit financially while he is in the position that he is.
Why are you criticizing Cheney? Why aren't you criticizing Gore for giving only $367 in 1997 when he was VP? It's obvious that you really don't care about who's charitible. All you seem to care about is vilifying Cheney. Why don't you save it and start a "I Hate Dick Cheney" thread. Is the term 'rational liberal' an oxymoron? I'm beginning to think so.
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Once again for the fools: authoritarian was not what I meant, it was a typo.
It was supposed to be "It takes authority to keep a society civil" as in rebuking corporate idiotic utopian fantasys like vics.
I was busy or something, after around 8k posts over years on this forum mistakes happen, so sue me you wankers.
You and vic are both really pathetic misrepresenting something I said was a typo, but thats is pretty expected of your ilk.
Who were you before bannation?Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Cheney is no saint and he is about as charitable as he is courteous to Dem Senators on the floor of Congress.
Let see if the donations keep coming AFTER he is out of public office and is no longer constrained by rules that dictate that he cannot benefit financially while he is in the position that he is.
Why are you criticizing Cheney? Why aren't you criticizing Gore for giving only $367 in 1997 when he was VP? It's obvious that you really don't care about who's charitible. All you seem to care about is vilifying Cheney. Why don't you save it and start a "I Hate Dick Cheney" thread.
Is the term 'rational liberal' an oxymoron? I'm beginning to think so.
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Cheney is no saint and he is about as charitable as he is courteous to Dem Senators on the floor of Congress.
Let see if the donations keep coming AFTER he is out of public office and is no longer constrained by rules that dictate that he cannot benefit financially while he is in the position that he is.
Why are you criticizing Cheney? Why aren't you criticizing Gore for giving only $367 in 1997 when he was VP? It's obvious that you really don't care about who's charitible. All you seem to care about is vilifying Cheney. Why don't you save it and start a "I Hate Dick Cheney" thread. Is the term 'rational liberal' an oxymoron? I'm beginning to think so.
The only person thinking irrationally is you. A quick google search came up with this. You need more than one year to judge a person's "charitability"