or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Dear Media, Try Harder to Obscure being Totally in the Tank for Obama
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dear Media, Try Harder to Obscure being Totally in the Tank for Obama - Page 3

post #81 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Geesh, if you quote him I have to read him.

Looks like the donations have been a bit donated from that unbiased media as well.

Most of those journalists are self employed, so maybe, just maybe they are donating from their hearts/minds and not for their employer.

As far as the employers/publishers, they all have been bamboozled and have since become critical of this republican administration. And they were on the "Straight Talk Express & BBQ" with McCain in the early phase of the campaign. They realize now that there wasn't much beef on those BBQ ribs of a flip-flopping, tottering old man.

Face it. Choices have to be made because profits have to be made. Even Fox may flip. Yes, even Fox. Oh wait!

Quote:
Fox: $40,573 / $0

Fox News/Fox News Channel: $1,280 / $0 *

Damned liberal, biased Fox News...

* would like citation on that though...
post #82 of 268
Journalists are usually liberals, what does that have to do with the media coverage of Barack Obama and John McCain?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #83 of 268
post #84 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So let me see if I understand your reasoning.

It is totally fine for the media to ignore and not report on certain solutions because Obama needs, in your view, to be elected no matter what. We need propaganda instead of news to insure the result.

Bush has done what every president has done when problems were handed to them. It isn't like Clinton asked for WTC I, U.S.S. Cole, Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, Oklahoma City, Hurricane Andrew, etc.

Oh wait... did you forget about all those with your rose colored propaganda glasses on or was it that the media wasn't so profoundly biased that it found a way to blame the president for every event that happens in the world back then.

Whoever takes the reins will NOT have their work cut out for them because they will at best, be arguing about how to handle the last 10% of the job that has mostly been handled during the Bush years.

Clinton lucked into slightly better economic timing than Bush. He caught the economy coming out of the recession that insured Bush I, a man who by any liberal measures executed the first Gulf War perfectly, wasn't reelected. He also lucked into having the Internet stock bubble pop past the time of his term.

Every bit of campaign material you can find for Clinton promised a middle class tax cut. Instead he raised taxes on the middle class.

So, again polish your glasses and check your memory.

Oh god! Now it's luck! Now that we've debunked the Greenspan thing!

I remember what Clinton promised. I voted for him. I remember all the speeches about " Focusing on the economy like a laser beam " and the buzz phrase about him was " It's the economy stupid ". Clinton had to raise taxes to cover the mistakes made by daddy Bush in the late 80's. Recent times trumpy I really don't need a refresher course on this one.

So we started Bush jr. ( I kind of like that ) with a surplus left over from the Clinton administration and what do we have now? Please trumpy on this one you really don't have a leg to stand on. And here we are like it's 1991! It's almost deja vu only worse! But hey those Bush boys sure know how to party with our money!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #85 of 268
"It's Senator Obama's fault that I am senile!" John McCain in a speech to the board of AARP. "It is also his fault that I was shot down and hit my head, as well as he was instrumental in convincing the Vietnamese to put me in the Hanoi Hilton. He is a bad, bad guy. He never ever helps me change my diapers."

I am jamac and I approved this message.
post #86 of 268
The media is so in-the-tank for Obama that CBS creatively edited an interview with John McCain so that it would exclude part of an answer he gave; that part being an incorrect statement about the timeline of events during the surge.

One thing you see in there, and it's something you see a lot with McCain, is an overwhelming smugness and arrogance. He seems to constantly begin his sentences with "I don't know why Senator Obama doesn't know..." or something in that vein. He's the least respectful major presidential candidate I've seen, and that includes W who at least pretended to be a decent person most of the time during his campaign. (See: McCain telling Wolf "you gotta catch up" while he lies about Petraeus riding around Iraq in an unarmored humvee)

So not only is this guy consistently sarcastic, smug, and sanctimonious, he's often wrong while he does it. ("I mean, that's just a matter of history.")

Quote:
Katie Couric: Senator McCain, Senator Obama says, while the increased number of US troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What's your response to that?

McCain: I don't know how you respond to something that is as-- such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel MacFarland was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history.

The Anbar Awakening began before anyone had even floated the idea of a "surge"; something the very commander referenced (MacFarland) in a September 2006 press conference.

John McCain is trying to rewrite history to fit his political narrative ("the surge was a magic cure-all!") and the media that is supposedly "in-the-tank" for Obama edited his statements so that he would look better.

If these were real journalists they would've made a point of mentioning how McCain was wrong on the timeline, but no... not these people.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #87 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I really don't need a refresher course on this one.

I think you might.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Clinton had to raise taxes to cover the mistakes made by daddy Bush in the late 80's.

What mistake was that? Raising taxes?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So we started Bush jr. ( I kind of like that ) with a surplus left over from the Clinton administration

Wrong. There was no "surplus left over". The "budget surplus" was a budgetary and accounting shell game.
post #88 of 268
The media is so in-the-tank for Obama that CBS creatively edited an interview with John McCain so that it would exclude part of an answer he gave; that part being an incorrect statement about the timeline of events during the surge.

One thing you see in there, and it's something you see a lot with McCain, is an overwhelming smugness and arrogance. He seems to constantly begin his sentences with "I don't know why Senator Obama doesn't know..." or something in that vein. He's the least respectful major presidential candidate I've seen, and that includes W who at least pretended to be a decent person most of the time during his campaign. (See: McCain telling Wolf "you gotta catch up" while he lies about Petraeus riding around Iraq in an unarmored humvee)

So not only is this guy consistently sarcastic, smug, and sanctimonious, he's often wrong while he does it. ("I mean, that's just a matter of history.")

What was actually said:
Quote:
Katie Couric: Senator McCain, Senator Obama says, while the increased number of US troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What's your response to that?

McCain: I don't know how you respond to something that is as-- such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel MacFarland was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history.

What was aired:
Quote:
Katie Couric: Senator McCain, Senator Obama says, while the increased number of US troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What's your response to that?

McCain: Sen. Obama has indicated that by his failure to acknowledge the success of the surge, that he would rather lose a war than lose a campaign. Thanks to General Petraeus, our leadership, and the sacrifice of brave young Americans. I mean, to deny that their sacrifice didn't make possible the success of the surge in Iraq, I think, does a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed.

They added that first bolded sentence from one of McCain's answers to another question. And they excised the portion about how the surge started the Anbar Awakening.

The Anbar Awakening began before anyone had even floated the idea of a "surge"; something the very commander referenced (MacFarland) in a September 2006 press conference.

John McCain is trying to rewrite history to fit his political narrative ("the surge was a magic cure-all!") and the media that is supposedly "in-the-tank" for Obama edited his statements so that he would look better.

If these were real journalists they would've made a point of mentioning how McCain was wrong on the timeline, but no... not these people.


----

Also, in a sign of utmost class, the McCain campaign is attacking Obama for something Obama said at the Holocaust memorial in Israel.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #89 of 268
And look at this media in-the-tank for Obama, giving John McCain donuts with sprinkles and giggling with glee at his positive reaction.

That associated press writer who got him the donuts and was so happy to be with the general of the straight talk express is not exactly a paragon of journalistic objectivity... read her "analysis" here.

Quote:
Barack Obama chose winning over his word.

The Democrat once made a conditional agreement to accept taxpayer money from the public financing system, and accompanying spending limits, if his Republican opponent did, too.

No more.

Anyone paying attention knows the media isn't "in-the-tank" for Barack Obama. If they're "in-the-tank" for any candidate, it's John McCain.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #90 of 268
Just so trumptman doesn't get confused again over this...side by side comparisons of the real answer and the doctored one.
post #91 of 268
Thread Starter 
Didn't we already discuss that video?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #92 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Didn't we already discuss that video?

No, we haven't. So let's start here in the thread it should be discussed...what I stated here...

When you're presented video, you want a transcript, when you presented a transcript you want to see the missing footage? You'll have to ask CBS for that because they never aired it.

How incredibly ignorant of you. Let me clarify my position on this...

I'm not stating, "See, the media isn't in Obama's pocket after all if they're going this easy on McCain!!!"

It is entirely possible for the news media to treat BOTH of them too gingerly. Them giving McCain a pass doesn't count as evidence they're anti-Obama, nor vice versa; it only counts as evidence that they want to give McCain a pass on this kind of thing for whatever reason. They might do the same kind of thing for Obama in another context.

In other words, be careful of selection bias when analyzing how the media cover politics.

The unfortunate thing is, the only real news being reported on American television IS on The Daily Show and Colbert Report.

BY THE WAY. A co-worker told me that CNN's Anderson Cooper showed the missing footage.
post #93 of 268
<crickets>
post #94 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Trumptman

We're in the " real " problems right now!

That's the point. We can't talk about those, because no one is allowed to talk about where Obama stands, who he is, or what he actually believes.

Quote:

Whoever takes the reins has their work cut out for them! Bush has done such a bang up job it will take years to sort it all out.

That's an oft repeated line, one that is just empty rhetoric.

Quote:

By the way the Clinton administration may not have been " Camelot " but in the end he did what he promised.

WHAT? He did practically nothing he promised. He promised middle class tax cuts. He raised taxes on the middle class. He was terrible wrt national security. He lied under oath. I mean really...you have to be kidding.


Quote:
We had a stellar economy for a few years in the late 90's and a balanced budget not because of the republicans or Greenspan or dotcom anything else!

1. Please demonstrate one thing Clinton did to create the stellar economy from the late 1990s.

2. The balanced budget was, in fact, the work of the Republican led Congress.

Quote:

Hey! Come to think of it we had to wait for things to be fixed from the last Bush then also!

Not quite as bad though.

While Bush 41 was a bit out of touch, he certainly didn't cause the recession of 1991-1992. What other "things" needed to be fixed?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #95 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That's the point. We can't talk about those, because no one is allowed to talk about where Obama stands, who he is, or what he actually believes.

An observation that is facially braindead.

Care to cite any specific examples?
post #96 of 268
It's suddenly silent in here. Folks don't like it when video and transcripts are provided to prove media bias.

Take Howard Fineman for instance...

On Monday he was on MSNBC apologizing for the media making a big deal about Obama trip. He proclaimed, "The media isn't following him around because the prefer Obama, they just think he's got the biggest chance at winning. So they think they're traveling with the next president."

And then ONE DAY LATER said on MSNBC, "Obama is running the risk of looking like he's already won the election." WTF? One day you say the press is just doing it's job. The next day you say Obama's screwed because the press is doing it's job.

Talk about pivoting on the same issue when it's convenient.

And did you see that Greenspan fucker, Andrea Mitchell? She was breathlessly furious that the Army decided to shoot the video of Obama on the tarmac and the press wasn't allowed to do it. She was furious! She was insistently it was Obama's doing. When, in fact, it is Army policy. Oh, well. What do you expect from a TV journalist who's in the tank for McCain.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #97 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

It's suddenly silent in here. Folks don't like it when video and transcripts are provided to prove media bias.

Take Howard Fineman for instance...

On Monday he was on MSNBC apologizing for the media making a big deal about Obama trip. He proclaimed, "The media isn't following him around because the prefer Obama, they just think he's got the biggest chance at winning. So they think they're traveling with the next president."

And then ONE DAY LATER said on MSNBC, "Obama is running the risk of looking like he's already won the election." WTF? One day you say the press is just doing it's job. The next day you say Obama's screwed because the press is doing it's job.

Talk about pivoting on the same issue when it's convenient.

And did you see that Greenspan fucker, Andrea Mitchell? She was breathlessly furious that the Army decided to shoot the video of Obama on the tarmac and the press wasn't allowed to do it. She was furious! She was insistently it was Obama's doing. When, in fact, it is Army policy. Oh, well. What do you expect from a TV journalist who's in the tank for McCain.

How is the weather is Bizzaro World today? Really Northgate...denying that the media is pro-Obama is like saying the San Diego Padres are going all the way this year. This campaign has already resulted in the most egregious bias...perhaps in history. McCain has been utterly ignored as the media has slobbered all over Obama. All three major network anchors go abroad with him? And of course, the one reporter who actually criticizes Obama is automatically "in the tank" for McCain. Tell me...how do you sleep at night?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #98 of 268
Yes, yes, yes.

Examples?

Dan Rather?
post #99 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Yes, yes, yes.

Examples?

Dan Rather?

Shawn, you're really smarter and more observant than that.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #100 of 268
Ah, "in the tank." The great thing about that phrase is how it puts such a bright spotlight on the complete lack of original thought in the losers who parrot it. It's the kind of phrase that makes you wonder if PR firms use it just for analytics.
post #101 of 268
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Oh god! Now it's luck! Now that we've debunked the Greenspan thing!

I remember what Clinton promised. I voted for him. I remember all the speeches about " Focusing on the economy like a laser beam " and the buzz phrase about him was " It's the economy stupid ". Clinton had to raise taxes to cover the mistakes made by daddy Bush in the late 80's. Recent times trumpy I really don't need a refresher course on this one.

So we started Bush jr. ( I kind of like that ) with a surplus left over from the Clinton administration and what do we have now? Please trumpy on this one you really don't have a leg to stand on. And here we are like it's 1991! It's almost deja vu only worse! But hey those Bush boys sure know how to party with our money!

I would suggest that your memory is a bit dodgy. You are now rationalizing what was already proven faulty about your memory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

"It's Senator Obama's fault that I am senile!" John McCain in a speech to the board of AARP. "It is also his fault that I was shot down and hit my head, as well as he was instrumental in convincing the Vietnamese to put me in the Hanoi Hilton. He is a bad, bad guy. He never ever helps me change my diapers."

I am jamac and I approved this message.

Make sure to wear the diapers to the Democratic convention too. This way you can stand there in them and make a speech about how wearing band-aids with purple hearts is cruel swiftboating smears while implying someone is incontinent, incomprehensible and demented is just "good politics" and not "dirty tricks."

Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

No, we haven't. So let's start here in the thread it should be discussed...what I stated here...

When you're presented video, you want a transcript, when you presented a transcript you want to see the missing footage? You'll have to ask CBS for that because they never aired it.

How incredibly ignorant of you. Let me clarify my position on this...

I'm not stating, "See, the media isn't in Obama's pocket after all if they're going this easy on McCain!!!"

It is entirely possible for the news media to treat BOTH of them too gingerly. Them giving McCain a pass doesn't count as evidence they're anti-Obama, nor vice versa; it only counts as evidence that they want to give McCain a pass on this kind of thing for whatever reason. They might do the same kind of thing for Obama in another context.

In other words, be careful of selection bias when analyzing how the media cover politics.

The unfortunate thing is, the only real news being reported on American television IS on The Daily Show and Colbert Report.

BY THE WAY. A co-worker told me that CNN's Anderson Cooper showed the missing footage.

I went and looked. I completely discussed it in that thread but with Tonton. I'm not going to rehash it here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

<crickets>

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

It's suddenly silent in here. Folks don't like it when video and transcripts are provided to prove media bias.

You two really need a life. I mean who expects someone to sit here all day posting? I already post too much and you complain I don't put a poop pan under mean and spend all day typing to you.

Let's have some fun though. I'm attending to errands today. We are installing an evaporative cooler to save energy and cool the house without the need of air conditioning.

The rule for my house is that if the kids are too quiet, it probably means trouble. So I go peaking around looking for the youngest. This is what I find.....



Yes, that is my six year old with my saw. I'm really torn because... gosh it is so nice when they are quiet.

North, regardless of what Art believes, I did deal with the video in the outlier thread and will be happy to continue there.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #102 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I would suggest that your memory is a bit dodgy. You are now rationalizing what was already proven faulty about your memory.



Make sure to wear the diapers to the Democratic convention too. This way you can stand there in them and make a speech about how wearing band-aids with purple hearts is cruel swiftboating smears while implying someone is incontinent, incomprehensible and demented is just "good politics" and not "dirty tricks."



I went and looked. I completely discussed it in that thread but with Tonton. I'm not going to rehash it here.





You two really need a life. I mean who expects someone to sit here all day posting? I already post too much and you complain I don't put a poop pan under mean and spend all day typing to you.

Let's have some fun though. I'm attending to errands today. We are installing an evaporative cooler to save energy and cool the house without the need of air conditioning.

The rule for my house is that if the kids are too quiet, it probably means trouble. So I go peaking around looking for the youngest. This is what I find.....



Yes, that is my six year old with my saw. I'm really torn because... gosh it is so nice when they are quiet.

North, regardless of what Art believes, I did deal with the video in the outlier thread and will be happy to continue there.

Quote:
I would suggest that your memory is a bit dodgy. You are now rationalizing what was already proven faulty about your memory.

Oh really? Would you care to talk about your Greenspan comment again?

Anyway I'll take care of the " proof " with my next post.

I remember just fine. And you do need a poop pan ( to handle all the BS. ).
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #103 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

I think you might.




What mistake was that? Raising taxes?




Wrong. There was no "surplus left over". The "budget surplus" was a budgetary and accounting shell game.

I notice your website also has this nice article about " The reality of Climate Change ".

No bias there eh what?

I found the page about the guy who runs the website entertaining. Here's a link for all to see!

http://www.letxa.com/articles/14

Mr. Greenspan ( who praised Clinton ) might have something to say about content of your website. But of course the guys at your website know better.

Try this on for size!

http://www.theage.com.au/news/busine...881433621.html

Or this :

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...fedbook15.html

or even this :

http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=5064

Quote:
He says, “Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences.” The large, anticipated federal budget surpluses that were the basis for Bush’s initial $1.35 trillion tax cut “were gone six to nine months after George W. Bush took office.” So Bush’s goals “were no longer entirely appropriate. He continued to pursue his presidential campaign promises nonetheless.”

Quote:
Greenspan interviewed Clinton for the book and clearly admires him. “President Clinton’s old-fashioned attitude toward debt might have had a more lasting effect on the nation’s priorities. Instead, his influence was diluted by the uproar about Monica Lewinsky.” When he first heard and read details of the Clinton-Lewinsky encounters, Greenspan writes, “I was incredulous. ‘There is no way these stories could be correct,’ I told my friends. ‘No way’.” Later, when it was verified, Greenspan says, “I wondered how the president could take such a risk. It seemed so alien to the Bill Clinton I knew, and made me feel disappointed and sad.”

I was disappointed and sad also. However that doesn't change what Clinton did for the economy.

Have a nice day.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #104 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I notice your website also has this nice article about " The reality of Climate Change ".

No bias there eh what?

Mr. Greenspan ( who praised Clinton ) might have something to say about content of your website. But of course the guys at your website know better.

Try this on for size!

http://www.theage.com.au/news/busine...881433621.html

Or this :

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...fedbook15.html

or even this :

http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=5064





I was disapointed and sad also. However that doesn't change what Clinton did for the economy.

Have a nice day.

Or you could address the facts (actual numbers and everything) presented in the article. You could do that. Or maybe you can't. Maybe you're not capable.
post #105 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

Or you could address the facts (actual numbers and everything) presented in the article. You could do that. Or maybe you can't. Maybe you're not capable.

So you're saying that I have to do this because you know more than Alan Greenspan?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #106 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So you're saying that I have to do this because you know more than Alan Greenspan?

I'm not saying that you have to do anything. But it's clear that you want to simply ignore the facts and rely upon your ad hominem and appeal to authority fallacies.

Alan Greenspan could want to cuddle and kiss Bill Clinton and knife George Bush in an alley. That won't change the numbers in relation to your Clintonian "surplus".

Personally I prefer to look at facts more than listen to rock stars. This helps me to avoid being misled. You might give it a try.
post #107 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

I'm not saying that you have to do anything. But it's clear that you want to simply ignore the facts and rely upon your ad hominem and appeal to authority fallacies.

Alan Greenspan could want to cuddle and kiss Bill Clinton and knife George Bush in an alley. That won't change the numbers in relation to your Clintonian "surplus".

Personally I prefer to look at facts more than listen to rock stars. This helps me to avoid being misled. You might give it a try.


So once again it's " Because it says so in my right wing media ragsite it's gotta be true! "



Numbers in accounting can be slanted anyway you want. The numbers are interpreted by the opinion of that website.

Once again do you think you or the guy on that website know more than Greenspan?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #108 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So once again it's " Because it says so in my right wing media ragsite it's gotta be true! "



Numbers in accounting can be slanted anyway you want. The numbers are interpreted by the opinion of that website.

Once again do you think you or the guy on that website know more than Greenspan?

He took numbers from the treasury department. But it seems that facts that don't comport with your pre-determined world view and dogma are to simply be dismissed.

Your willful ignorance is amusing. Scary if you actually vote. But amusing at this point.

It's even more clear that you want to simply ignore the facts and rely upon your ad hominem and appeal to authority fallacies. Good luck with that.
post #109 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

North, regardless of what Art believes, I did deal with the video in the outlier thread and will be happy to continue there.

If you can't see how the press gives McCain big giant passes on his gaffes, misstatements and outright lies then you're never gonna see it.

So here's some of that liberal dogma that Jubelum loves to tag me with, "The press is showering Obama with great press....at the moment." There.

Can you do the same and admit that McCain considers the media "his base"?
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #110 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

How is the weather is Bizzaro World today? Really Northgate...denying that the media is pro-Obama is like saying the San Diego Padres are going all the way this year. This campaign has already resulted in the most egregious bias...perhaps in history. McCain has been utterly ignored as the media has slobbered all over Obama. All three major network anchors go abroad with him? And of course, the one reporter who actually criticizes Obama is automatically "in the tank" for McCain. Tell me...how do you sleep at night?

I sleep great.

Yes, the media is currently fawning over Obama. They've been fawning over McCain for a DECADE. McCain consider the media "his base." Chris Matthews chuckled that they were his base.

CBS just got finished helping cover up a MAJOR gaffe by McCain just this week. I guess that's cool with you. I can only imagine how trivial it would be to you if MSNBC was caught doing the same for Obama. Right? Riiiiiight?

Last time I checked McCain ONLY invited CBS to attend his last trip to Iraq. Huh. I wonder why only they went with him. LOL!

Andrea Mitchell has been pretty hard core anti-Obama since the beginning of the primaries. She has a well documented record. Google it.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #111 of 268
I'm sure the media sees Obama as a terrific story. But man, every little thing becomes "Obama is flip-flopping!" whereas McCain can completely reverse positions on every single major policy, and do it three or four times, and he can say that Iraq and Pakistan share a border, he can say the surge started before the Sunni "awakening," he can call al Qaeda Shia, and it doesn't matter. Obama has to be twice as good and make half as many errors as McCain to get the same media scrutiny.

But there's one thing this campaign is showing: Obama actually is twice as good of a candidate and actually does make half as many errors. The big news out of the campaign so far - and maybe it will change, I don't know - is how terrible of a candidate McCain is. He just makes lots of errors and has a very un-charismatic campaign presence.
post #112 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

He took numbers from the treasury department. But it seems that facts that don't comport with your pre-determined world view and dogma are to simply be dismissed.

Your willful ignorance is amusing. Scary if you actually vote. But amusing at this point.

It's even more clear that you want to simply ignore the facts and rely upon your ad hominem and appeal to authority fallacies. Good luck with that.


Your arrogance is amusing! The fact that you think I should take the word of you and this right wing web site that doesn't believe in Global Warming either!

Here's a sample :
Quote:
GLOBAL WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE

Related article: IPCC report continues global warming scaremongering
Related article: The Crystal Clear Farce of the Environmentalists


Climate change is a natural part of the environment. Since the day the earth cooled, the climate has constantly changed, sea levels, temperature, and carbon dioxide have risen and fallen, and shorelines have changed. The fact that the climate is changing is nothing new to the planet and it's not even new to humans (who experienced the Little Ice Age a few centuries ago). The difference is now we are monitoring the parameters of the environment with enough precision to see the changes.


Global warming is being severely hyped. The entire issue of global warming is being blown out of proportion. Calm and rational scientific discourse has been replaced with extremist political maneuvering. Bureaucrats are involved in the authoring and editing of the IPCC documents which also seems strange. In short, I feel that the significance of global warming is being hyped far out of proportion considering the scientific data, the fact that climate change is a part of our planet, and that a lot of conclusions are being made based on computer models which themselves generate models that are only as good as the assumptions of the authors of the models.


Focus on coping, not changing the climate. Regardless of whether or not global warming is real and whether or not we have had some impact on our environment, we should be focusing our efforts and investments on coping with climate change, not trying to lessen our impact on the environment based on the hopes that that will reverse global warming.




This is laughable. What you're offering isn't straight facts it's interpretation.

Funny I can't seem to find who this guy actually is. I did find this in his " Why do I care " section :

Quote:
In the past, I've spent a lot of time debunking conspiracy theorists. This site was originally launced in an attempt to debunk a conspiracy theory. These days, my "debunking time" is usually spent dealing with more mainstream topics and outright liars. However, it's all similar in that whether it be crazy conspiracy theories or just general lying, they are all based on deceit which is made easier by the Internet.

Many people may simply ask: Why in the world do you care if some people think that NEXRAD weather radars control the weather? Why do you care if some people think contrails are a government spraying operation? Why do you care if some people think 9/11 was a government operation planned by the Bush administration? Let them believe what they want. Why waste your time addressing such silly claims? They're harmless and only deluding themselves. So "Why" is a very valid question.

There are three reasons: Practical, intellectual, and being annoyed.

The practical reason is due to stories like this where a man, fearing alien clones and a CIA conspiracy, killed two people before surrendering. Another example can be seen on this conspiracy site where a gullible reader ("TrueLies") asks on February 16th what are in "chemtrails", she is flooded with silly theories, and then later reports a list of ailments including "paranoia." Even her husband told he she shouldn't visit such conspiracy sites, and yet the fact that she did caused her to have a hypochondriac-style response to non-existant chemicals. And now we have crazy Hollywood types like Charlie Sheen promoting the 9/11 conspiracy theory.

So, no, these people don't only harm themselves. Their disinformation and scaremongering can and do harm many others.

Another reason is intellectual. While such theories strike a rational person as just being silly, the exercise of investigating and rejecting them is stimulating and informative. My interest in NEXRAD and subsequently the development of this site was originally due to my investigation into a crazy conspiracy theory regarding NEXRAD. In the process I learned a lot about radar--which I've tried to summarize in the radar section of this site--which makes it worth the time investment.

Asking questions about the government or science is fine and healthy. It's when people believe something in spite of all reasonable, logical, and scientific evidence to the contrary that they become dangerous--both to themselves and, as shown above, to others.

Finally, the other reason is being annoyed. As of April 23, 2004, they banned me at the Chemtrail Central forum where I used to talk with these people. No reason was given but what seemed to bother them was the fact that I asked too many questions, the wrong questions, and always insisted on references to back up their claims. So they banned me. Since I no longer have a voice there, my voice is here and I will show the absurdness of their unfounded beliefs on this website. And I'll do the same when others promote absurd theories or engage in outright lies.

From what I could tell this " expert " is interested in a type of radar or weather tracking. Who is this guy? Do you know?

He probably was banned for annoying that forum to death with his insistance that what he was offering was " fact " and not interetation.

So you and this guy know more about the economy than a man who served as Federal Reserve chairman for 18 years! Excuse me if I don't just take that at face value.

If you had offered me another well known economist ( that was a little less right wing biased ) that was challenging Greenspan it might have a little more credibility.
What's scary is that there's people out there who eat this stuff up.

But at least in a few months we'll have a president who doesn't have this world view.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #113 of 268


jimmac, you continue to dismiss the numbers. If you want to address the actual numbers then we could have an intelligent discussion. If you want to blather on about everything but the numbers, then I guess we can't.
post #114 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post



jimmac, you continue to dismiss the numbers. If you want to address the actual numbers then we could have an intelligent discussion. If you want to blather on about everything but the numbers, then I guess we can't.

Yes! By all means " pay no attention to the man behind the curtain ".

I'm not an economist. Are you? So I have to rely on a recognized expert in the field.

Since we're all just handles here we can claim to be anything and it means nothing. So we have to rely on credible sources of information if we're not experts in the field of discussion ourselves.

I have seen some other examples of your " intelligent discussion " on subjects I do know about.

I can tell interpretation when I see it.

Next time bring some support for your arguments from someone real.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #115 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I'm not an economist. Are you?

No, but I'm pretty heavily studied in the field.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So I have to rely on a recognized expert in the field.

You can't add and subtract? You can't think logically (well, I think we know the answer to that at this point) and deductively?

This actually isn't that complex of a problem to understand. It doesn't really require extensive (or even any) knowledge of economics. This is simple budget trackign. You either believe the numbers or you don't.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Next time bring some support for your arguments from someone real.

And still more ad hominem.

post #116 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

No, but I'm pretty heavily studied in the field.




You can't add and subtract? You can't think logically (well, I think we know the answer to that at this point) and deductively?

This actually isn't that complex of a problem to understand. It doesn't really require extensive (or even any) knowledge of economics. This is simple budget trackign. You either believe the numbers or you don't.




And still more ad hominem.


Quote:
And still more ad hominem

What do you think your comments have been?

If it's so easy to undestand how is it your opinion and Mr. Geenspan are different?

And why don't you want to talk about the source you offered up as support for your argument?

I mean that's logical thinking isn't it?

Give it up. Your argument is an opinion.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #117 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Your argument is an opinion.

You're right. It's my opinion (because we all know that addition and subtraction results are whatever I feel like they or want them should be) that:

$5.807463 trillion (the total amount of national at the end of Clinton's 2 terms)

-

$4.411488 trillion (the total amount of national at the beginning of Clinton's 2 terms)

=

$1.395975 trillion (the total amount added to the national debt during Clinton's 2 terms)
post #118 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

You're right. It's my opinion (because we all know that addition and subtraction results are whatever I feel like they or want them should be) that:

$5.807463 trillion (the total amount of national at the end of Clinton's 2 terms)

-

$4.411488 trillion (the total amount of national at the beginning of Clinton's 2 terms)

=

$1.395975 trillion (the total amount added to the national debt during Clinton's 2 terms)


You must understand I don't even have to look at your numbers to question this. To know something's rotten in Denmark. Most people have said there was a budget surplus at the end of Clinton's term. You can claim anything but you must have unbiased third party support for your argument in this enviroment.

So far you've offered a website that's very polarized so it's no wonder they would say this. Just looking at this website would make one question. If it's so simple why can't you come up with dozens of websites with this same conclusion? I offered the opinion of someone well recoginized and usually supports republicans.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #119 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You must understand I don't even have to look at your numbers to question this.

More willful ignorance.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Most people have said there was a budget surplus at the end of Clinton's term.



More logical fallacy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You can claim anything but you must have unbiased third party support for your argument in this enviroment.

The numbers are from here.
post #120 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

More willful ignorance.






More logical fallacy.




The numbers are from here.


Ok You can't answer my questions. That's ok. I understand.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Dear Media, Try Harder to Obscure being Totally in the Tank for Obama