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

Originally Posted by trumptman

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.

Fox: $40,573 / $0

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

Originally Posted by trumptman

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.

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.

Originally Posted by jimmac

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

Originally Posted by jimmac

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

Originally Posted by jimmac

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

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Didn't we already discuss that video?

Originally Posted by jimmac

Trumptman

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

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.

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

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!

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.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

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.

Originally Posted by Northgate

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.

Originally Posted by ShawnJ

Yes, yes, yes.

Examples?

Dan Rather?

Originally Posted by trumptman

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.

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

Originally Posted by sslarson

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.

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.”

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.”

Originally Posted by jimmac

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.

Originally Posted by sslarson

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.

Originally Posted by jimmac

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

Originally Posted by sslarson

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.

Originally Posted by jimmac

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?

Originally Posted by trumptman

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

Originally Posted by SDW2001

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?

Originally Posted by sslarson

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by sslarson



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.

Originally Posted by jimmac

I'm not an economist. Are you?

Originally Posted by jimmac

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

Originally Posted by jimmac

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

Originally Posted by sslarson

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.

And still more ad hominem

Originally Posted by jimmac

Your argument is an opinion.

Originally Posted by sslarson

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)

Originally Posted by jimmac

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

Originally Posted by jimmac

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

Originally Posted by jimmac

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

Originally Posted by sslarson

More willful ignorance.






More logical fallacy.




The numbers are from here.