O B A M A

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

Well lets see: I pay income tax, property tax, I just paid a 5% tax for my sons truck, a 5% tax on most goods I buy, excise tax on boats, cars and trucks. tax on the cell phones, tax on fuel, tax on cable. Fees, fees and more fees on my daughters state college education. Do you want me to go on Spence, or maybe like 50% of my income is enough.

I don't think I have ever heard anyone but you ask if maybe we don't pay enough....

It's funny. Listing off the names of taxes is like listing off the names of all the plays a football team uses - Up the middle, off tackle, toss, sweep, trap, counter, go, post, flank, slant, hook, flat... a lot of the plays are very similar (just like many taxes are very similar in rate) but personnel resource allocation is adjusted (just as specific tax revenues are often allocated for specific purposes - think, gas tax for infrastructure).

You really do adhere to the "FoxNewsChannel School of getting a groundless point across", attempt to overwhelm your opponent with mundane facts then spin and manipulate those "facts" in an attempt to prove a weak point. Then there's also the aspect of never actually answering any question someone asks you but presenting the illusion you did - that must be taught in the advanced class.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

It's funny. Listing off the names of taxes is like listing off the names of all the plays a football team uses - Up the middle, off tackle, toss, sweep, trap, counter, go, post, flank, slant, hook, flat... a lot of the plays are very similar (just like many taxes are very similar in rate) but personnel resource allocation is adjusted (just as specific tax revenues are often allocated for specific purposes - think, gas tax for infrastructure).

You really do adhere to the "FoxNewsChannel School of getting a groundless point across", attempt to overwhelm your opponent with mundane facts then spin and manipulate those "facts" in an attempt to prove a weak point. Then there's also the aspect of never actually answering any question someone asks you but presenting the illusion you did - that must be taught in the advanced class.

If you think the gas tax money is only spent on infrastucture then your misinformed. I think like 45% maybe goes there.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

It's funny. Listing off the names of taxes is like listing off the names of all the plays a football team uses - Up the middle, off tackle, toss, sweep, trap, counter, go, post, flank, slant, hook, flat... a lot of the plays are very similar (just like many taxes are very similar in rate) but personnel resource allocation is adjusted (just as specific tax revenues are often allocated for specific purposes - think, gas tax for infrastructure).

You really do adhere to the "FoxNewsChannel School of getting a groundless point across", attempt to overwhelm your opponent with mundane facts then spin and manipulate those "facts" in an attempt to prove a weak point. Then there's also the aspect of never actually answering any question someone asks you but presenting the illusion you did - that must be taught in the advanced class.

I don't watch Fox News so I don't know about its School or if it does what you say, but the method of overwhelming an opponent with "facts" (whether they are actually facts or not) then moving on, and not answering questions, even actually changing the subject when the questions are too much to the point . . . this method of argument has existed long before Fox News, or its School, existed. Actually, my liberal friends as well as liberal media commentators are quite adept at using the method.

[Cool Beans]

Originally Posted by detbuch

the method of overwhelming an opponent with "facts" (whether they are actually facts or not) then moving on, and not answering questions, even actually changing the subject when the questions are too much to the point . . . this method of argument has existed long before Fox News, or its School, existed. Actually, my liberal friends as well as liberal media commentators are quite adept at using the method.

That's the Definition of "Drive By Media"

All Hail, Rush, Hannity, Beck, Levin and Savage!!

[spence]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

That's the Definition of "Drive By Media"

All Hail, Rush, Hannity, Beck, Levin and Savage!!

And what's the consistent theme among all of these guys? They all rely on conflict to enrich their sponsors and in turn enrich themselves.

"Drive by media" is nothing more than a strawman catch phrase that Rush uses (quite expertly) to convince you he's right. What nobody pays attention to is that it's just a play on the old "shoot the messenger" aphorism.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

And what's the consistent theme among all of these guys? They all rely on conflict to enrich their sponsors and in turn enrich themselves.

"Drive by media" is nothing more than a strawman catch phrase that Rush uses (quite expertly) to convince you he's right. What nobody pays attention to is that it's just a play on the old "shoot the messenger" aphorism.

-spence

THE consistent theme is enriching themselves?? How terrible that one should use one's talent to enrich himself. So how do you feel about the rest of the media who make loads of money? Are they also part of THE consistent theme? Amazing how the most CONSISTENT criticism of the Limbaugh, Coulter, etc. crowd is that their in it for the money. Very little of actual engagement and debate about their IDEAS, which are, actually, their consistent theme.

I believe the old "shoot the messenger" aphorism refers to killing the bearer of BAD news not FALSE news. Rush's "Drive by Media", in his opinion, is full of strawmen, slander, and other untruths.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

THE consistent theme is enriching themselves?? How terrible that one should use one's talent to enrich himself.

You're taking my comment out of context. They're enriching themselves through conflict that's often ugly, hateful and at the expense of others.

Their ideas are simply a vehicle. They don't do what they do out of a sense of conservative altruism, they're entertainers for gods sake. It's about ego and dollars first and foremost.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You're taking my comment out of context. They're enriching themselves through conflict that's often ugly, hateful and at the expense of others.

Their ideas are simply a vehicle. They don't do what they do out of a sense of conservative altruism, they're entertainers for gods sake. It's about ego and dollars first and foremost.

-spence

Of those that I've listened to, Savage might be the closest to your description. To me, the others, especially Limbaugh, are engaging the "conflict" of ideas. I don't expect the selfessness of altruism to be a factor in such a conflict (debate?). Everything your are and believe should be employed. To me, they seem to take their ideas seriously, and, to me, much of the ideas make sense. Perhaps I'm naive or just lack your intuitive powers to know that their ideas are simply a vehicle and do what they do simply as: "entertainers . . .ego . . .dollars first and foremost." How do you know this, and why is it important? Entertainment makes truth more pallatable, ego is necessary, without the dollars there are no shows. But how does that diminish what they actually say and in what way does it prove that their ideas are not sincere?

BTW, I've seen more ugliness and hatefulness in these threads than heard on Limbaugh.