Who Said it?

Buffet could have voluntarily paid any amount he liked, whatever amount he thought would be "fair" for him to pay, and ask others to do the same. He has the right to use reason and convince others to follow his example. However, no individual has a "right" to impose his will onto others by force.

I'm not going to argue about NBC because I don't remember ever seeing it. I wasn't asking about biased news, I was asking about the dishonesty of sitting on news. There is a difference between bias of editorials or pundits and bias in the handling actual news events like Lewinski.

Stewart shows lots of Fox -- mostly pundits. One show was dedicated mostly to Glen Beck. And yes it is all very silly.

From my perspective Fox has shown a great deal of disrespect to BO. Sure, I would agree that most of the media respects OB much more than W. That is reasonable from my point of view, but certainly not from your perspective.

What is not reasonable from my perspective? If you stated your opinion correctly, you just agreed with me that the media treats BO much better than they treated W. This is proof of bias. No?

You claim to NEVER watch Fox and admit getting your information about them from a left wing comedian who admittedly hates Fox. Yet you persist in making conclusions about Fox News. Do you fail to comprehend how silly your opinion is? Can you specifically reference an example of their disrespecting BO? Did you dislike ALL the other networks during W's reign when they persistently disrespected him? Of course you did not.

One can't make a proper conclusion about some thing unless they research that thing. Does that make sense to you?

No I don't think it is proof of a bias because W was a buffoon and was treated the way a buffoon should be treated. He started an unnecessary war having fake or dubious evidence of WMD development in Iraq, and the media eventually called him on that.

Stewart has loads of material on Fox idiocy. Sure he shows the worst of Fox pundits. I have no desire to watch Fox to look for it's good(?) features, where it's "fair and balanced." So I will simply remain biased by Stewart's slant.
These are clips of Stewart making fun of Obama or his administration:

Fast and Furious

Libyan embassy assassination

Makes fun of both Romney and Obama on debate

Oh brother...you finally show your true colors. A truly partisan liberal. It is okay for the press to be biased because W was a buffoon....in your mind. You libs will never learn. I had hopes that you were not one of them.

Yes Bush was a terrible president, but so is BO. You think BO should be treated differently by the press because you like him. Do you see how we differ?

No I think the press should have gone after BO much more than they did or are doing. In prior posts I have already said that he should have have stopped the wars much earlier as he once promised. I understand (from the liberal press?) that Bush started the bailouts, so BO isn't entirely at fault. BO (and W) should have cut spending in many areas, but didn't. In short I am unhappy with Obama. He should have started a decline of farm, oil, and other subsidies and also military spending. One of his worse acts is supporting corn ethanol, a very wasteful process that doesn't do anything. With 10% ethanol my car mileage dropped by almost 10%. Do the math. My auto mechanic called ethanol "an inert filler." Even Scientific American ripped BO for ethanol.

The revenue collected from taxation has never gone lower than a certain amount and never higher than a certain amount no matter how high or confiscatory the rates have been set. If I am not mistaken, and I am guessing a bit here, the lowest amount of revenue generated has been 17% and the highest has been 21%. The problem is and has always been spending and not how much revenue is collected. Additionally, the gov is not capable of predicting or controlling how much revenue it collects so it might as well learn to live between 17% and 21%. some wise sage here said it should set its budget as if it will collect 17% then any year in which more is collected is a bonus.

Since most of your exposure to Palin and Fox news is admittedly through Stewart that may explain why you can't understand what people saw in her.

Stewart and others would show actual clips from Fox. The clips spoke for themselves.

Actually, I was pointing out the statistical probability of having a balanced budget, relative to spending as % of GDP, based on the historical-empirical data concerning revenue as a % of GDP. Historically, over the last 40 years, the government has averaged 18% of GDP, the high was 20.9% (during the tech bubble) and the low was 16.1% (during the recession that followed).

We're spending 24% of GDP now - Probability of surplus = 0.0% (0 times in 40 years)
If we spend 20% of GDP - Probability of surplus = 5% chance (twice in 40 years)
If we spend 18% of GDP - Probability of surplus = 50% chance (20 of 40)
If we spend 16% of GDP - Probability of surplus = 100% chance (40 of 40)

16 Trillion is a lot of debt but that's the molehill, our unfunded liabilities in the hundreds of trillions are the mountain. If we take ALL our nations debt into account, government would have to be cut all the way down to the low single digits and have perpetual GDP growth in the double digits but even then we would only have a fraction of a chance to achieve long term fiscal solvency.

The following are true statements.....
1. Sarah Palin said she can see Russia from her house.
2. Obama's plan to tax the wealthy is all about fairness and will help resolve the deficit.
3. Republicans and conservatives WANT dirty water and air.
4. The Tea Party is racist, homophobic, sexist, and violent.
5. Fox News is a radical hard right news outlet.

Agreed?

Oh goody, a true-false quiz. I know there is a "gotcha" here, but I'm game.
1. False.
2. Possibly true. I don't know what Obama really thinks.
3. False.
4. False over-generalization.
5. Opinion (That I personally think is true.)

So so many times on these boards I have seen actual quotes that so clearly show something but when I put them in context I find out just how much editing and twisting has been done or even simply misinterpreting that I can no longer take these kinds of clips at face value without actually doing my own research. One simply cannot trust clips like that. That aside do not forget that cherry picking is clearly taking place. Stewart shows you the worst and none of the best. Air an program for a million hours and there is going to be some bad in there. If you wanted to be at all unbiased you would have to after watching the clips then go look at clips the other side shows. Personally I find that to be just a big game of gotcha and prefer to try to boil things down to the fundamentals and principles of the issues.

I have seen that stat in many forms using a variety of language and in many places.

Here is one example from Pew that I found for you:

"Young adults are much more heavily represented among the lower class than are older adults. Fully 26% of those in the lower class are under age 30, while only 10% of those in the lower class are age 65 or older."

The article also said that upper class tended to be married, college grads, own a home, and be happy in their family life. Now ask yourself won't the college student will be young (because college kids are), not married because he has not yet found a wife, not own a home because he is still in college, and not be happy with the family that he has not yet formed while the older person will have accomplished much of this simply because he has had the time to do so? That is how people get rich - by working all their lives and saving.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/08/27/yes-the-rich-are-different/