FOX-News Parent Corp. Sued

[Sonny]

Fact - We are paying less now then we did in the 70's for gasoline, based on real dollars (adjusted for inflation).

I for one hope that prices continue to reach a level that finally entice people out of their cars. Maybe all of the people I see in the morning at the drive through would have it much tougher on a bike. On the other hand, my 50 miles to the gallon rapidly increases my pay back period.

Higher gas prices = more tax revenue = more money for more pork in Washington? No thanks.

[laxfan25]

That's OK, I just picked up a set of wheels that gets 130 MPG!
Not he most practical (especially with winter coming on) but lots of fun. I was wondering if any others on collegelax ride mopeds?
(You can double-click the image for a larger view)

[img][img]http://www.mini2.com/galleries/data/500/thumbs/Motobecane.jpg[/img][/img]

[Zeuslax]

Fact - We are paying less now then we did in the 70's for gasoline, based on real dollars (adjusted for inflation).

Exactly, you flushed out the root of the discussion. In addition, the US consistently pays lower prices than the rest of the world. This includes much of the Middle East.

2005 adjusted costs and quantities adjusted for gallons. I decided to show the 2005 numbers because 2007 numbers are much larger. Much of the EU is paying over 7 dollars/gal currently. There is up to 75% tax on a liter of gas remind you.

Netherlands Amsterdam $6.48
Norway Oslo $6.27
Italy Milan $5.96
Denmark Copenhagen $5.93
Belgium Brussels $5.91
Sweden Stockholm $5.80
United Kingdom London $5.79
Germany Frankfurt $5.57
France Paris $5.54
Portugal Lisbon $5.35
Hungary Budapest $4.94
Luxembourg $4.82
Croatia Zagreb $4.81
Ireland Dublin $4.78
Switzerland Geneva $4.74
Spain Madrid $4.55
Japan Tokyo $4.24
Czech Republic Prague $4.19
Romania Bucharest $4.09
Andorra $4.08
Estonia Tallinn $3.62
Bulgaria Sofia $3.52
Brazil Brasilia $3.12
Cuba Havana $3.03
Taiwan Taipei $2.84
Lebanon Beirut $2.63
South Africa Johannesburg $2.62
Nicaragua Managua $2.61
Panama Panama City $2.19
Russia Moscow $2.10
Puerto Rico San Juan $1.74
Saudi Arabia Riyadh $0.91
Kuwait Kuwait City $0.78
Egypt Cairo $0.65
Nigeria Lagos $0.38
Venezuela Caracas $0.12

Higher gas prices = more tax revenue = more money for more pork in Washington? No thanks.

That's definitely one way of looking at it. In Canada gas taxes are directly tied to infrastructure and alternative energy production. Personally, I would like to see more people out of their cars for four reasons: Air quality, personal health, lower imports (9.1 million barrels a day), and lastly we need high energy fuels used in industrial applications............not for personal use.

[Sonny]

Anthony,

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you suggest we emulate the quasi-socialist governments of the EU? Have you seen the tax rates in some of those countries?

[Zeuslax]

No point with gas pricing other than to highlight the comparison of the US to the world. I added the tax comment about the EU merely to point out and to possibly answer some of the immediate questions as to why they may be paying so much more.

Have you seen the tax rates in some of those countries?

I have on many occasions. We have a house in one of the most beautiful parts (at least in my opinion) of Greece. We have family in Germany as well. Europe is very easy to travel because of it's public transportation systems as well.

The tax rate discussion related to the EU is starting to get debated as well. Europe is doing very well and economic opportunity has exceeded the US for years now.

[OAKS]

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you suggest we emulate the quasi-socialist governments of the EU? Have you seen the tax rates in some of those countries?

Unfortunately someone has to pay for Iraq. We can't keep taking out loans from the Chinese.

[JW]

So then if OPEC is involved in the raising in Gas prices and not major Corporations, how is that the gas prices have gone from about one dollar when i was starting college in 2007 to the national average of over 3 dollars/gallon now?

I don't know.

Do I feel entitled, not at all, do i feel like it is unfair, i don't know either, but I have this feeling that something is not right with the country as it is right now.

I hate that Politicians spend millions upon millions of dollars in their campaign process, and that millions are donated to Congressional Pacts every year. That is such a waste of money. With all the things that this country needs i feel it is a terrible waste of resources to have millions of dollars spent on advertising in political races. Just seems ridiculous.

With all this said, I do not feel like I am bad off. I have a great job in a great profession (nursing - insert all Focker jokes), have a roof over my head, clothes on my back, and food to eat. I have had an opportunity to learn and play lacrosse in the MCLA and loved every minute of it. My life has been good. But my life in the giant scheme of creation does not matter unless i use it to influence the lives of others.

[Sonny]

The answer Sonny, of course, is no. The media companies you cite are all legitimate news organizations.

Some fun from last week's Democratic debate on CNN (a legitimate news organization with no bias):
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivYt6G1m_D4[/youtube]

[OAKS]

Some fun from last week's Democratic debate on CNN (a legitimate news organization with no bias):

They are at a Democratic debate, so they are most likely Democrats. What's the big deal? I believe wholeheartedly that they are most likely indeed undecided voters in terms of how they're going to vote in the primaries. CNN didn't say they were random.

The real question you need to be asking, Sonny, is why did CNN place James Carville, an "informal advisor to Hilary Clinton's campaign" on the debate panel who proceeded to give praise to Clinton and criticize Obama, and not even disclose his affiliation to the viewers, simply stating he was a "former presidential advisor"? They also need to give all the invited candidates equal airtime, or their polls are just going to be self-fulfilling on both sides of the aisle.

One thing I really wish we had was a form of Instant-Runoff Voting so more people would be encouraged to vote for 3rd party candidates (or 2nd place candidates in the primaries) without worrying that they're throwing away their vote. You can read more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

[Sonny]

CNN didn't say they were random.

Of course not. They were planted there. As noted on multiple other sites/blogs:

In a nutshell, CNN's six "undecided voters" were:

A Democratic Party bigwig
An antiwar activist
A Union official
An Islamic leader
A Harry Reid staffer
A radical Chicano separatist

Do you think it's politically or ethically correct for CNN to imply these "man on the street" type questions to seasoned political veterans?

P.S. Do you think if the roles were reversed and the Republicans planted 6 similar folks to act as undecided voters at a nationally televised debate - the left/Main Stream Media would let this pass without a peep?

P.S.S. If these are ordinary, undecided voters of the left - the Democrats are going to lose in a land slide next November.

[Campbell]

They could have made some better choices in the people they had asking questions, but then again CNN could have asked the candidates some better questions. I watched the debate and found a lot of the questions to be too narrow in scope and demanding yes or no answers in a world that is far from black and white. The funny thing is after the debate Anderson Cooper is on there criticizing the candidates for struggling with CNN's own stupid questions. All in all I enjoyed listening to the candidates, but CNN did a bad job in my opinion.

I am not a fan of FOX news, but I have no real issue with them. In my eyes they are as good or bad as any other cable news station. In a way FOX is genius because they have captured the right wing niche in America of which they probably have a lot of viewers. A lot of media outlets can be pretty liberal and now conservatives have a voice on the news. All the news stations are about making money, which is why they cover stupid stories like Paris Hilton, OJ, Anna Nicole Smith, Lindsay Lohan, etc. ad nauseam. FOX just does what every other news station does, but targets a large audience that has been neglected.

[Zamboni_Driver]

Now I hate the media, but I do have to pull out my red challenge flag here.

Unless I missed it, they said they were Undecided Voters at the Democratic Debate, which means they are undecided on which of the democratic candidates they will vote for.

I don't think they implied that they were undecided if they were voting democrate or republican (and I highly doubt these people are undecided in that capacity)

I hope these guys review the questioners when it is a presidential debate, because that would be completely inappropriate in that context.

[StrykerFSU]

The war is over: Judith Regan, the publisher fired in the wake of her efforts to release O.J. Simpson's hypothetical "confession," has settled her $100 million lawsuit with Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.
"The parties are pleased that they have reached an equitable, confidential settlement, with no admission of liability by any party," according to a joint statement issued Friday.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UD3TPG0&show_article=1

Not a surprising outcome.

On one hand it looks like legal blackmail payed off in this case of he said, she said. If Regan really had strong proof of corruption, I think she forces this to trial so not only would she win millions but she would expose all that is wrong at News Corp. Instead News Corp. settles because it's cheaper and they are a corporation with a bottom line.

On the other hand, News Corp really is guilty of having a sexist culture that sacrificed the uber-talented Regan to their goal of President Giuliani and world domination and would pay any price (<$100 mil) to avoid seeing their misdeeds aired for all to see.

I guess either way, it's old news in light of Rudy's current 3rd place standing in Florida.

[Dan Wishengrad]

Not a surprising outcome.

I agree, very predictable.

If Regan really had strong proof of corruption, I think she forces this to trial so not only would she win millions but she would expose all that is wrong at News Corp. Instead News Corp. settles because it's cheaper and they are a corporation with a bottom line.

Hmmmm. Not sure I concur, Cliff. Murdoch has billions and always seems to relish a fight. Why did they cave so quickly and agree to the un-reported settlement? I doubt it was anything even close to $100 million, but I'll bet it was for more than 10 million. If they go to trial, which could last for quite a long time, they could win if her proof wasn't strong and could also appeal the verdict if they did lose. They could be completely vindicated on the one hand and be able to keep up their "fair and balanced" charade. They could even recoup legal costs from her if they won, and counter-sued her successfully! Or News Corp could simply stretch the thing out for years and Regan would never see a dime during the lengthy appeals process.

We can all draw our own conclusions, of course. But I say the relative speed with which FIXED-News caved on this is pretty damning, and I'm pretty sure they were desperate to keep her audio tapes from being played publicly in court. It wasn't the "sexist culture" they were worried about, it was the whole relationship between them and the Republican party in general and with Giuliani in particular which was not something they wanted to have dissected for public consumption.

"FAUX News -- We settle out of court without admitting any guilt, you decide."