| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/07/2004 03:43:12 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Ron stop your twisting games.
You simply cannot compare CNN with Fox in the "media bias" categories.
Another look at Fox News
The fact that your attempting to do so will serve to discredit you and shows your agenda.
Besides that fact, a quick look at that graphic I posted comes from "Economic Policy Institute" and "Department of Labor". |
But...But...But...
I was only commenting on the MESSENGER - CNN - not the SOURCE - just like my critics - Pitsaman, Ericlimon, and bdobe did. Isn't that a valid way to respond to the content of posted links? I don't understand? Is there a double standard in force here?
|
|
|
|
09/07/2004 03:45:42 PM · #27 |
RON THERE IS NO MEDIA BIAS WITH CNN THATS REMOTELY COMPARABLE TO FOX NEWS.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2004 04:05:15 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by louddog:
Funny how the same people that cite information from the AFL/CIO call FOX biased... |
What does that mean? |
Have you noticed that the AFL/CIO is biased? They are a labor union! They have their own agenda.
---
Still waiting to hear who is losing their overtime??? Anyone??? Supposedly there are 6 million people losing their overtime, there has to be a few examples?
|
|
|
|
09/07/2004 04:12:55 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by _Armadildo_:
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Fox News?
You are joking , right ?! |
HAHAHA! Well said! |
LMAO FOX News thats as close minded as it gets!
|
|
|
|
09/07/2004 04:22:07 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by louddog:
Funny how the same people that cite information from the AFL/CIO call FOX biased... |
What does that mean? |
Have you noticed that the AFL/CIO is biased? They are a labor union! They have their own agenda.
---
Still waiting to hear who is losing their overtime??? Anyone??? Supposedly there are 6 million people losing their overtime, there has to be a few examples? |
I hadn’t read that article posted by Pitts. I however posted my own article from cnn.com that I thought was informational. |
|
|
|
09/07/2004 04:47:53 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
I hadn’t read that article posted by Pitts. I however posted my own article from cnn.com that I thought was informational. |
The article you posted was informative but did not state that people would gain or lose overtime. It simply said different groups have a different opinion on how the changes will effect the work force. It was a very good article, but it does not support the opinion that the change will hurt more then it helps.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2004 04:50:21 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
RON THERE IS NO MEDIA BIAS WITH CNN THATS REMOTELY COMPARABLE TO FOX NEWS. |
YES THERE IS. ( See, I can use all CAPS, too ).
You do know, don't you that CNN was founded by Ted Turner - the man who said, "Christianity is a religion for losers,"?
The man who joked that the pope should step on a landmine?
The man who, upon seeing some CNN employees wearing ashes on their forehead on Ash Wednesday, he remarked, "What are you, a bunch of Jesus freaks? You ought to be working for Fox."?
The man who is so anti-Christian that he blamed his divorce from his third wife, Jane Fonda, partly on her decision to become a practicing Christian?
Yes, the Jane Fonda of Anti-Vietnam War Fame.
Now, do you really think that a leftist like Turner would NOT expect to see his biases find their way into his network's opinion pieces? If so, then you are naive. Turner is way more biased toward the left than Rupert Murdoch is toward the right.
Oh, and Ted Turner also gave the largest gift EVER ( $1 Billion ) to the United Nations.
Enough about CNN.
To the point of the CONTENT of your link, not the MESSENGER: The graphic only showed estimates - opinions of the respective sources, made BEFORE the new regulations were formalized. The link which I provided shows some instances of actual impact AFTER the new regulations have been implemented. There is often a large difference to be seen between estimates and actualities.
Ron |
|
|
|
09/07/2004 04:52:00 PM · #33 |
The main advertised purpose of the change to the FLSA was to get rid of the fuzzy wording that allowed for several lawsuits costing companies millions. Under the new rules it is not as fuzzy, exempt and non-exempt are more clearly defined to avoid the gray area and lawsuits. The original intent of exempt and non-exempt has not changed. If you feel their intent has changed, please explain and cite quotes from the old version and the new version.
While they were in there making changes, they also updated the minimum salary for being exempt since it hasn’t been updated in over 50 years. I don’t think anyone will argue that this was a mistake. They also added that if you earn over $100,000 (six figures) your company does not have to pay you overtime. How many people bring home $100K and still need to work OT to feed their kids?
I’ll also add, just because the FLSA says you are not entitled to overtime pay, it does not mean your company cannot pay you for overtime if they want to. I work for a fortune 100 company, I am classified as exempt, and my company pays me overtime when they require that I work it.
And to clarify one more thing. No company can force you to work without paying you.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2004 04:52:29 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Of course the "source" is important, since this is the only way we have (as consumers of information) of gauging what point of view is being advocated. Even the author of the opinion piece you cited uses "source" as a valid criteria for gauging how much credence he'll give to facts/information. In his opinion piece the author writes:
"The misplaced concerns about the overtime rules can be traced to a report by the pro-union Economic Policy Institute, which estimated that six million workers would lose statutory overtime protection under the new rules."
Note that the author injects his own bias by describing the Economic Policy Institute as pro-union and, too, thereby "alerts" the reader that the Institute's analysis should not be taken at face value.
As for the author of the opinion piece you cited, Mr. Paul Kersey, he is no mere "labor researcher." Mr. Kersey was a director at the National Right to Work Committee, which -- in almost Orwellian double-speak -- describes it self as pro-worker. However, one of the nation's largest workers union, the AFL-CIO, described Mr. Kersey's organization as the "far right wing anti-workers’ rights National Right to Work Committee." [see here and here]
Now, all of this is just to show that sources do matter, and that just as many on the right don't trust main-stream media (and their sources), many of us on the left have similar complaints against the same institutions. And, as for the subject of this thread, I'm still doing research on it; however, I certainly will not take the Heritage Foundation's word regarding what's best for workers.
.......................................
Originally posted by RonB:
FYI,
Although the article I linked to was published by FoxNews, and originated at The Heritage Foundation, the AUTHOR of the article is Paul Kersey - a labor research associate for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute headquartered in Midland, Mich.
From their web site ( ref here ):
"The Mackinac Center for Public Policy is a nonpartisan research and educational organization devoted to improving the quality of life for all Michigan citizens by promoting sound solutions to state and local policy questions. The Mackinac Center assists policy makers, scholars, business people, the media and the public by providing objective analysis of Michigan issues. The goal of all Center reports, commentaries and educational programs is to equip Michigan citizens and other decision makers to better evaluate policy options.
But don't consider the SOURCE or the FACTS - only cosider the messenger(s). That way you can plead BIAS!, BIAS!, BIAS!, and ignore the facts.
Ron |
|
So, now that we have established that personal or corporate bias DOES creep into Opinion pieces, what do you say about the statements of "fact" that were presented? True or false? |
|
|
|
09/07/2004 04:56:11 PM · #35 |
Read that graphic closely, it says depends on who you ask. It's not saying one or the other is correct, and it's not saying both are correct, it simply says one group thinks it will add 1.3 mil and the other group thinks it will drop 6 mil (not both).
That article is not anti or pro the change. It simply lays out the change and says people disagree on the effect it will have.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2004 05:14:47 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
RON THERE IS NO MEDIA BIAS WITH CNN THATS REMOTELY COMPARABLE TO FOX NEWS. |
YES THERE IS. ( See, I can use all CAPS, too ).
You do know, don't you that CNN was founded by Ted Turner - the man who said, "Christianity is a religion for losers,"?
The man who joked that the pope should step on a landmine?
The man who, upon seeing some CNN employees wearing ashes on their forehead on Ash Wednesday, he remarked, "What are you, a bunch of Jesus freaks? You ought to be working for Fox."?
The man who is so anti-Christian that he blamed his divorce from his third wife, Jane Fonda, partly on her decision to become a practicing Christian?
Yes, the Jane Fonda of Anti-Vietnam War Fame.
Now, do you really think that a leftist like Turner would NOT expect to see his biases find their way into his network's opinion pieces? If so, then you are naive. Turner is way more biased toward the left than Rupert Murdoch is toward the right.
Oh, and Ted Turner also gave the largest gift EVER ( $1 Billion ) to the United Nations.
Ron |
Care to cite some sources or proof in any of that? Otherwise ill consider that no more than an opinion piece. Especially the "Turner is way more biased toward the left than Rupert Murdoch is toward the right." comment. Regardless, Fox is not trust worthy and should not be used to cite any information. If you cant find it anywhere else, it probably shouldn’t be posted anyway.
Btw, your saying that Ted Turner giving a 1 billion dollar gift to the United Nations is something bad? If all the individual governments and leaders weren’t so damn corrupt and greedy, the United Nations would become what this world needs, HUMANS OF ALL TYPES WORKING TOGETHER FOR THE GOOD OF THE WHOLE.
godamn I really hope humans jump a few thousand years in evolution soon. Its so frustrating being part of all this nonsense with no clear skies in sight. |
|
|
|
09/07/2004 05:25:59 PM · #37 |
This is unrelated to the subject of this thread; however, given how many of us are "regulars" on these political/rant threads, I thought that it wouldn't be completely out of the blue.
Well, regrettably, we now stand at over 1,000 U.S. military fatalities in Iraq. (Note that elsewhere I have addressed concerns about civilian casualties and, too, issues relating to the lack of firm pre-war evidence on the existence of W.M.D. posing a threat to the US. I have even addressed the misleading quote, relating to W.M.D., that is attributed to Mr. Kerry, and which many on this board have relied on to support Mr. Bush's pre-war statements.)
Incredibly, as some of you may remember, when I first posted the U.S. fatality figure some four weeks ago, the figure stood at 932. Moreover, while we continue to loose more troops in Iraq, the mainstream media (CNN, FOX, CBS, NBC, ABC, et al) -- like the good little lap dogs that they are -- focuses on far less relevant issues (i.e., smears by a partisan group that has demonstrable ties to the Bush campaign).
As some in the conservative movement asked in yesteryears, America, where's the moral outrage?
.......................................
If you're interested in reading the posts I refer to above (and Ron's responses to them :) ), please see the tread: Bush: Flip Flopper in Chief.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2004 06:46:42 PM · #38 |
okay...
Anyone have examples of someone losing their overtime yet?
|
|
|
|
09/07/2004 07:12:49 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by louddog:
okay...
Anyone have examples of someone losing their overtime yet? |
As a software engineer, I've supposedly lost my overtime pay. However, in the eleven years I've worked as a software engineer, I've never actually received any overtime pay so I can't really say anything has changed. I was always told that salaried employees didn't get overtime. Does someone owe me a crap load of back pay or what? |
|
|
|
09/07/2004 07:29:04 PM · #40 |
<<< godamn I really hope humans jump a few thousand years in evolution soon. Its so frustrating being part of all this nonsense with no clear skies in sight.>>>
What a shame, you're just so damn much better than anyone else and yet you're stuck here with all the evil riff-raff! Poor baby............ |
|
|
|
09/08/2004 02:29:46 AM · #41 |
It looks like some in the Republican party have had enough battering, and have finally decided to stand up to Mr. Bush: Log Cabin Republicans vote to withhold Bush endorsement.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2004 08:33:38 AM · #42 |
Yeah, but how many of them are losing their overtime? Is this thread a general bush bash or a discussion of the new FLSA changes?
|
|
|
|
09/08/2004 10:11:22 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Care to cite some sources or proof in any of that? Otherwise ill consider that no more than an opinion piece. Especially the "Turner is way more biased toward the left than Rupert Murdoch is toward the right." comment. Regardless, Fox is not trust worthy and should not be used to cite any information. If you cant find it anywhere else, it probably shouldn’t be posted anyway.
Btw, your saying that Ted Turner giving a 1 billion dollar gift to the United Nations is something bad? If all the individual governments and leaders weren’t so damn corrupt and greedy, the United Nations would become what this world needs, HUMANS OF ALL TYPES WORKING TOGETHER FOR THE GOOD OF THE WHOLE.
godamn I really hope humans jump a few thousand years in evolution soon. Its so frustrating being part of all this nonsense with no clear skies in sight. |
I didn't find it on Fox - but thanks for the plug. The more you guys rant and rave about Fox, the more popular they become ( gee, I wonder why? )
As for the notes about Turner - I could find them all on several sources, but then you'd just say BIAS BIAS Can't Trust NRO, Can't Trust FOX, Can't Trust The NY Post, Can't Trust yadda yadda yadda. If you can't find it on the liberal rags it can't be trusted.
So here's a link that isn't one of those. I'm sure you'll just say the pastor lied, or got his info from Fox or something, but here's the link anyway HERE. You can find a lot more sources by searching yourself using keywords "turner" and "religion for losers", or "turner" and "jesus freaks", etc. But then, none of them will meet your "gotta be a liberal link" criteria.
Since the word "Christian" is most often associated ( politically speaking ) with the word "right", as in "Christian right" or "right-wing Christians", then I would assume that anti-Christian would be associated with the word "left", as in "anti-Christian left" or "left-wing anti-Christian" ( though of course, you'll never see those kinds of associations in the media ( another evidence of liberal bias )). Ergo, since Turner is anti-Christian, he is left-wing. That, coupled with the fact that he has given $1 billion to the U.N. ( a favorite of the left, as well ) but no such "right-wing" organization has received such largess from Murdoch, I would say that he is way more biased toward the left than Murdoch is toward the right.
As for the U.N.: Any organization that would name Libya, a known human-rights abuser, and a country under U.N. sanctions, to chair the Commission on Human Rights is obviously a farce. Then, too, look at how they handled the Oil-for-Food program - their leaders are as corrupt as any government or corporation you can name.
Since you felt that it was OK to use the word "godamn" in your post, I must assume that you, too, are anti-Christian, like Turner. This is not surprising, given your liberal, anti-Christian, anti-Bush stance on most issues. I do find it interesting that many people feel that it's perfectly OK to bash the Christian God, but wouldn't dare use such language when invoking the name of Allah, Buddha, or any other non-Christian deity. But, that's OK - we Christians are used to it. Jesus warned us that we should expect persecution.
Now, back to the issue at hand: As louddog has REPEATEDLY requested - Can ANYONE show ANYONE who has lost their overtime???
Ron
Message edited by author 2004-09-08 10:12:13. |
|
|
|
09/08/2004 10:54:27 AM · #44 |
LOL nice reference, "Lindsay Christian Church".
This is interesting Does TV Have A Liberal Bias? |
|
|
|
09/08/2004 11:03:59 AM · #45 |
I just found out that at the job I used to work at, many of the salaried employees just gained overtime pay as a result of this new legislation. Maybe I should have stayed there - I left because of the amount of overtime I was having to work. I could have made bank!
|
|
|
|
09/08/2004 11:19:31 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
If all the individual governments and leaders weren’t so damn corrupt and greedy, the United Nations would become what this world needs, HUMANS OF ALL TYPES WORKING TOGETHER FOR THE GOOD OF THE WHOLE. |
There goes all my respect for you... How is la-la land BTW... |
|
|
|
09/08/2004 11:21:03 AM · #47 |
I posted that one particularly for you, knowing that you would dismiss it on the pure basis of it's coming from the "religious right". You also did not disappoint me by ignoring the rest of my posting - especially the parts about the U.N. and the anti-Christian left.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2004 11:25:32 AM · #48 |
Yep.
Also Russell, thats a shame you dont realize where humans should be. |
|
|
|
09/11/2004 01:27:29 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
RON THERE IS NO MEDIA BIAS WITH CNN THATS REMOTELY COMPARABLE TO FOX NEWS. |
Actually, MadMorgeon, I have to disagree. CNN has veered pretty sharply to the right over the past year, since Turner is no longer running the show.
This may not come as a surprise, as the CNN chief, Walter Isaacson, courted the GOP (//www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0805-04.htm) and made changes to bring CNN more right-wing compatible, in order to retake marketshare lost to Fox News.
The media watchdogs have logged plenty of right-wing bias associated with CNN over tyhe past years. |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 09:42:57 AM · #50 |
So who is watching the watchdogs? I notice that almost EVERY "media watchdog" service is a heavey left leaning group. Also, in my watching of CNN every day, I think it's pretty saf to say that there has been no "veer to the right" by CNN. Thats just a helarious statement.
I'd love it if CNN was more conservative, I'd be the first to cheer if it was even remotly near the middle of the argument or all on my side. Instead I find my self shaking my head in disbelief at most of it's coverage. Also has any one ever payed attention to the international CNN? Very anti-american and VERY far to the left... |
|
