Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: AUChizad on February 22, 2010, 11:11:13 PM
-
I know you all saw this (and the same people that defend her are the ones that relentlessly bash Obama for using a teleprompter).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhY7uvoI9Oo#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhY7uvoI9Oo#ws)
But then this? Really?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62zufrMneFw# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62zufrMneFw#)
This looks like a Daily Show joke or something.
-
Negative sir.
I only make fun of the president and his teleprompters when it is put to me that he is such a great orator. A great orator needs no such items.
-
Negative sir.
I only make fun of the president and his teleprompters when it is put to me that he is such a great orator. A great orator needs no such items.
A great orator does not need a teleprompter while speaking to 6th graders
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AzfeeXSVAs# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AzfeeXSVAs#)
-
Thread is missing the point.
Writing on your hand is acting like a 6th grader.
But the thread wasn't even about that. It's that apparently the Republican party has embraced Palin's dumbassery as some kind of symbol of strength?
WTF.
-
Palin is a dumbass, should be expected.
-
Thread is missing the point.
Writing on your hand is acting like a 6th grader.
But the thread wasn't even about that. It's that apparently the Republican party has embraced Palin's dumbassery as some kind of symbol of strength?
WTF.
I think they all suck camel ballz.
-
Thread is missing the point.
Writing on your hand is acting like a 6th grader.
But the thread wasn't even about that. It's that apparently the Republican party has embraced Palin's dumbassery as some kind of symbol of strength?
WTF.
In my opinion Palin has no chance at the presidency. I don't think writing a few notes on your hand is that big of a deal. That being said the comercial is pretty stupid. Palin has a connection with alot of the flyover folks because they feel that she understands them on their level. To try and piggy back on her popularity with a commersial like this just fails on so many levels.
All that being said, I hope she sticks around for a while because I like looking at her. She is incredibly hot to me.
-
Now explain the teleprompter to the 6th graders. Imagine the media reaction had Bush done this.
-
Now explain the teleprompter to the 6th graders. Imagine the media reaction had Bush done this.
Well, Obama's people claim that he was only using the teleprompters and had the podium with the presidential seal for his address to the media, not the students.
Bullshit? Probably. Bad photo opp regardless? Definitely.
It's pretty bad PR, no doubt. I agree Bush would have caught hell for it, but Obama's getting his fair share over it as well. Especially when Palin's reading self-jotted notes off her hand like that. If you're going to consider her a legitimate Republican politician, you lose the right to joke about teleprompters when she's writing shit on her hand like a 6th grade cheater.
-
Well, Obama's people claim that he was only using the teleprompters and had the podium with the presidential seal for his address to the media, not the students.
Bullshit? Probably. Bad photo opp regardless? Definitely.
It's pretty bad PR, no doubt. I agree Bush would have caught hell for it, but Obama's getting his fair share over it as well. Especially when Palin's reading self-jotted notes off her hand like that. If you're going to consider her a legitimate Republican politician, you lose the right to joke about teleprompters when she's writing shit on her hand like a 6th grade cheater.
1st, I don't think she has any chance at the big show. therefore I can ridicule the prompter at a 6th grade event.
If a few notes (6th grade cheating) is bad, he brought the whole fucking book with him to cheat from.
-
I think the difference is style. I don't know that anyone should get up in arms about a president using a teleprompter. That goes for both sides of the political fence, considering that Reagan used a teleprompter. It's not "cheating" for a politician to write a speech (or have a speech written for them, in most instances) and then read that speech off of paper or a teleprompter. Afterall, if you think that most politicians give impromptu speeches, then you obviously have no clue about how politics work. They always write their speeches before hand, or at the very least have some structure planned out. The fact that they use notes, a teleprompter, or their hand to recall what they planned is not what I would consider cheating. They are simply different styles used for recalling and delivering (or simply reading) a speech.
The issue with Palin is that she just looks silly when she pauses and looks down at her hand. The purpose of a teleprompter is to allow the speaker to maintain eye contact with the audience (or at least to give the appearance of eye contact). Obama does very well at reading a teleprompter. So did Reagan. Not everyone can do it. Palin not only broke eye contact, which is fine, but she did so to look at her hand. It simply screams "I'm unprofessional" to have something written on your hand.
The teleprompter is merely a performance device. It doesn’t write the speech or control what is being said. Arguably, Palin's hand is a performance device, but it was very unprofessional looking and awkward when she paused, looked at her hand, and then continued. It's not the fact that she had notes or even that she paused to look at them; it was the nature of the location of the notes that made it seem childish. That is not an action that you expect from an adult, much less an adult who is supposedly in contention for a position of power.
-
I agree that the hand notes looks very unprofessional, and it is. But to me, here is one main difference. One, you are speaking freely, and the other is contrived or at the least very, very controlled.
Leaving Palin and Obama out of the specifics, here is why I like the "idea" of the notes on the hand and why I don't like the teleprompter for every public speaking engagement.
Example 1.
If you asked me to speak for 30 minutes about Auburn football, I could do it...from the heart. I may need 3 or 4 "points" jotted down on a napkin to remind me to discuss or expand on certain topics...but once the note triggered the topic, I could just start talking. I would have nothing to hide, I could speak freely from what I really believe and what I really feel about Auburn football.
Example 2.
Now let's say a professor at Auburn was asked to professionally give a speech about the Auburn football program. Let's say that secretly, in his own heart and deepest thoughts, he kind of resents the football program. He has a problem with the money thrown around, the salaries, the facilities, etc. He has a problem with the focus it is given in our society, etc. If he were in charge, he would begin a slow process to change things. However, because he is a professional, and because he was asked to do it, he will give a speech from a teleprompter about the Auburn football program. He will cover all the highlights, as well as all the important numbers and stats.
In this instance, the teleprompter is necessary. If the professor were to speak freely, or openly, probably somewhere along the way his true beliefs wold leak out. Maybe even subtly and unintentionally.
To me, the second example above is Obama. He says what needs to be said in front of the cameras.
Using a teleprompter in general? No big deal. It's used all the time to give important speeches and address the nation, has been for years. But I don't think Reagan was ever hiding behind it. I think had it gone down in the middle of a speech, he could have just spoken from his heart about what he was talking about and it would have been just as effective. He saw the world and America one way and he had nothing to hide about those beliefs and views.
I don't think Obama could pull that off. If he was left to speaking from his heart and mind on matters in America, we would likely see a completely different person, if only in a few phrases or words. I think we would see hints of the man that sat in front of Jeremiah Wright for 20 years. That is the man inside Obama, which is not the man America gets reading from a teleprompter.
As for Palin....who cares. There are certain things I like about her, but to me, she will live on as a conservative mouth piece, nothing more. I would be shocked to ever see her put on any road to the White House again. It was a desperate move that was viewed as good given the circumstances at the time. Unless the Republicans are complete morons (which could be the case), they won't let it get to that again.
-
On the other hand (haha) - part of Palin's appeal to the mainstream is that she acts like "one of us normal folks". Writing notes on your hand may be unprofessional for a professional pundit, but she hadn't been one for long. I guarantee that some folks connected with and indentified with that move, and like her even more for doing it.
-
On the other hand (haha) - part of Palin's appeal to the mainstream is that she acts like "one of us normal folks". Writing notes on your hand may be unprofessional for a professional pundit, but she hadn't been one for long. I guarantee that some folks connected with and indentified with that move, and like her even more for doing it.
Seriously? Would you want a CEO giving a speech with notes scrabbled on their hand like a child? Much less the President? C'mon... Palin is just blehhh.
-
On the other hand (haha) - part of Palin's appeal to the mainstream is that she acts like "one of us normal folks". Writing notes on your hand may be unprofessional for a professional pundit, but she hadn't been one for long. I guarantee that some folks connected with and indentified with that move, and like her even more for doing it.
As evidenced by the campaign commercial.
That, in my opinion, is a sad commentary on modern Republicans.
-
I agree that the hand notes looks very unprofessional, and it is. But to me, here is one main difference. One, you are speaking freely, and the other is contrived or at the least very, very controlled.
Leaving Palin and Obama out of the specifics, here is why I like the "idea" of the notes on the hand and why I don't like the teleprompter for every public speaking engagement.
Example 1.
If you asked me to speak for 30 minutes about Auburn football, I could do it...from the heart. I may need 3 or 4 "points" jotted down on a napkin to remind me to discuss or expand on certain topics...but once the note triggered the topic, I could just start talking. I would have nothing to hide, I could speak freely from what I really believe and what I really feel about Auburn football.
Example 2.
Now let's say a professor at Auburn was asked to professionally give a speech about the Auburn football program. Let's say that secretly, in his own heart and deepest thoughts, he kind of resents the football program. He has a problem with the money thrown around, the salaries, the facilities, etc. He has a problem with the focus it is given in our society, etc. If he were in charge, he would begin a slow process to change things. However, because he is a professional, and because he was asked to do it, he will give a speech from a teleprompter about the Auburn football program. He will cover all the highlights, as well as all the important numbers and stats.
In this instance, the teleprompter is necessary. If the professor were to speak freely, or openly, probably somewhere along the way his true beliefs wold leak out. Maybe even subtly and unintentionally.
To me, the second example above is Obama. He says what needs to be said in front of the cameras.
That's politics, plain and simple. Always has been, and probably always will be. Politicians don't get up and speak what they think; they say what they think you want to hear. As a result, their speeches are vague. They often speak of results and not the steps to get to the result. Speeches aren't tailored to effectively communicate the individual's idea; they're tailored to effectively communicate something vague enough that the majority of people will agree with it.
If any one person were to get up and publicly speak their views on a variety of topics in an honest manner, then they likely would not be elected by a majority vote. It's just how politics work. Does a teleprompter cause this? No. Can it be used to allow a person who doesn't passionately believe in something to effectively speak on that particular topic? Sure, but so can printed notes, note cards with handwritten notes, or notes on your hand.
You wouldn't get up in front of a class to give a speech on which you are being graded without preparing for it. And, in all likelihood, you wouldn't give the speech without notes (assuming it were allowed). Passionately believing in the topic and having knowledge of the topic isn't going to change that. You're going to want to prepare a speech in a structured manner, and you want to give that speech in a structured manner. Notes, via teleprompter or otherwise, give you a better chance of achieving that goal. Politicians are being "graded" by the number of votes they receive and their approval rating after the election. You don't leave something like that in the hands of impromptu speeches, just as you wouldn't leave your semester grade to extemporaneous ramblings of knowledge that may or may not have a coherent structure.
-
On the other hand (haha) - part of Palin's appeal to the mainstream is that she acts like "one of us normal folks". Writing notes on your hand may be unprofessional for a professional pundit, but she hadn't been one for long. I guarantee that some folks connected with and indentified with that move, and like her even more for doing it.
I don't quite know about that. I mean, I hear people all of the time talking about how they want "normal folks" and "average people" in office. But is that really true? Your average person can't control his or her own debt, much less an entire nation's debt. Your average person doesn't know where most countries are located, much less know the culture of them or have any idea of how to interact with them.
Based upon past elections, the public doesn't seem to want your average person either. They may state that they do, but their actions speak differently. Only nine presidents didn't have college educations, and those were prior to 1885. Our last four presidents graduated from ivy league schools, and fourteen presidents total had degrees from ivy league schools. Stanford, Duke, Georgetown and William and Mary are some of the non-ivy league schools from which seven presidents graduated. Ten presidents obtained degrees beyond the collegiate level.
I personally don't want an "average person" taking control of the country. I don't want someone who can't take the time to make actual notes before a public appearance, and instead chooses to scribble something on her hand, resulting in her looking unprofessional when she has to refer to the apparently impromptu notes. I don't want someone with average knowledge having to tackle issues and dilemmas that are orders of magnitude larger and more complex than what is dealt with in his or her average life. As much charismatic appeal as an average person might have, I don't want my leaders to win a popularity contest based upon how much they remind someone of their good ole average neighbor Joe. I want them capable of doing their job, and displaying a lack of professionalism doesn't instill confidence in me regarding their capabilities.
Although I don't want an average person in office, I would hope that even your average person would realize the seriousness of the office they seek and would attempt to carry themselves with an air of professionalism. Palin even lacks that respect for the seriousness of being a leader.
-
That's politics, plain and simple. Always has been, and probably always will be. Politicians don't get up and speak what they think; they say what they think you want to hear. As a result, their speeches are vague. They often speak of results and not the steps to get to the result. Speeches aren't tailored to effectively communicate the individual's idea; they're tailored to effectively communicate something vague enough that the majority of people will agree with it.
If any one person were to get up and publicly speak their views on a variety of topics in an honest manner, then they likely would not be elected by a majority vote. It's just how politics work. Does a teleprompter cause this? No. Can it be used to allow a person who doesn't passionately believe in something to effectively speak on that particular topic? Sure, but so can printed notes, note cards with handwritten notes, or notes on your hand.
You wouldn't get up in front of a class to give a speech on which you are being graded without preparing for it. And, in all likelihood, you wouldn't give the speech without notes (assuming it were allowed). Passionately believing in the topic and having knowledge of the topic isn't going to change that. You're going to want to prepare a speech in a structured manner, and you want to give that speech in a structured manner. Notes, via teleprompter or otherwise, give you a better chance of achieving that goal. Politicians are being "graded" by the number of votes they receive and their approval rating after the election. You don't leave something like that in the hands of impromptu speeches, just as you wouldn't leave your semester grade to extemporaneous ramblings of knowledge that may or may not have a coherent structure.
Don't disagree with any of that, not at all. I guess the main point of what I was feeling is better conveyed outside of being specifically related to the teleprompter. That just happens to be what got me onto the broader subject of Obama and his authenticity (or lack thereof in my eyes) in general.
The thing is, most politicians are taking what they generally believe or what their basic philosophy is and putting it into "political speech" format. The essence doesn't change at it's core. It's still there, it's just put on paper in speech format and varies to some degree from it's center in order to make it appealing to as many voters as possible....no question about that.
However, to me, Reagan could take what was in that political speech, or more specifically what was the heart of the motivation of that speech, and also sit down and speak about it in layman's terms. I don't think speaking from the heart would have been dangerous for him to do in an interview. He wouldn't have had to guard his words and ideas so much for fear of being "found out" or revealing his true beliefs or intentions.
To me, and this is my opinion only, I don't think Obama could do that. I don't think the guarding of his words wouldn't be so much for fear of accidentally saying something in the wrong way or slipping with a "bad sound bite", but rather, he couldn't do it because if the motivation and essence of what he actually believes came out, he'd be in trouble. As I mentioned above, every politicians "public version" of his philosophy varies slightly from reality. But I suspect Obama's is nearly unrecognizable from what he sells to voters and what his core beliefs and philosophies are.
To me, that's the difference. Obama supporters can roll their eyes when it comes to the Jeremiah Wright situation, but to me, that still tells me as much about Obama the man as anything he has done (right on par with the budget he's sent to congress, which should tell us a lot).
If you can sit under the teachings of Jeremiah Wright, and do so regularly and willingly, actually endorsing him as a leader and your personal spiritual teacher along the way....you have some seriously misguided views and stances on America and Americans.
Why do people go to the churches they go to? It's because they place their trust in the message and the theology that is being presented. Unfortunately most pick one that simply doesn't offend them or one that agrees with their own sovereign self. So in order to sit in a church and listen to the message for 20 years, you simply must agree with the foundation of the message. If it conflicted with your beliefs or with the theology that you submit yourself to, then you would leave. I would not be comfortable in a Mormon church. It would take me one or two sermons in that church to determine that the influence of what was being said was not from a source of theology that I lend any credibility to. So I would not go back. No hard feelings, nothing malicious about it, it just simply wouldn't make sense for me to stay there.
Yet, for 20 years, there he sat. Listening to this man insult and blame whites for any and every bad thing (from HIV to liquor stores in black neighborhoods), blame Katrina on the government, and all kinds of other things that should be and are considered wacko fringe theories. Anyway, I think Obama, more than any politician I've read about, hides who he is and what he believes from us, the people that elected him.
By the way, the above section about Wright has just about zero to do with "religion" or a stance on "God". It's more about hate, blame, and responsibility. It just happened to be taught in a church.
-
I don't know everything about the situation with Jeremiah Wright. To my knowledge, the controversial comments taken from his sermons came from 2001 and 2003, approximately 15 years after Obama had first met Wright. To be honest, I can agree with his comments from 2001. I don't think he worded them as he should have, but his implicit acknowledgment of America's meddling in the Middle East as a cause of the terrorist attacks is something that I agree with. I don't think it justified the terrorist attacks on America in any way, but I think if we had simply kept to our own business and stopped spending so much money on forcing peace in that region, we could have saved ourselves a lot of trouble.
Now, his comments in 2003 about the government lying about their knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack, the government lying about WMDs and how they would plant them just like the LAPD, and "God damn America," those were extremely absurd. There may have been truth to some of those statements, but the manner in which he spoke them were simply uncalled for, and the parallels he made concerning the treatment of the Japanese were not analogous at all.
Those comments are all I know of Jeremiah Wright, and they came 15 years after Obama met him. It's possible that Wright's demeanor became more bitter and racist over the years, and it's possible that he's always been like this; I don't know. It's possible that Obama didn't see this side of him until later, and that by then he stuck with the church because Wright was going to retire soon, and it's possible that Obama always knew this side of him; I don't know. What I know of Wright is limited, and what I know of why Obama stayed with the church is nothing, as I can't see into his brain. Regardless of the Wright controversy, I haven't heard anything like that come from Obama, teleprompter or not. And I can't definitively state that his use of a teleprompter is an effective means by which he hides his Wrightisms.
-
Sorry for the multiple posts for one reply, but the whole issue with Reagan was something I failed to address. Reagan made use of teleprompters very much. He was a great orator, yes. He was able to bring emotion into his speeches, yes. But did he actually stray from the teleprompter? I don't know; I wasn't there to see what the teleprompter stated and what he said. Did he write his own speeches? Possibly, but according to the odds, most presidents don't. So were his words heartfelt, expressive of his own views, and not dictated by a teleprompter? Possibly, possibly not. All I know is that his "face to face" emotional speeches to America from his office were conducted with the aid of a teleprompter. I can't definitively say that Reagan strayed from the prepared text to give his personal opinions anymore than I can say that Obama sticks strictly to the teleprompter in an attempt to hide his personal opinions.
-
Sorry for the multiple posts for one reply, but the whole issue with Reagan was something I failed to address. Reagan made use of teleprompters very much. He was a great orator, yes. He was able to bring emotion into his speeches, yes. But did he actually stray from the teleprompter? I don't know; I wasn't there to see what the teleprompter stated and what he said. Did he write his own speeches? Possibly, but according to the odds, most presidents don't. So were his words heartfelt, expressive of his own views, and not dictated by a teleprompter? Possibly, possibly not. All I know is that his "face to face" emotional speeches to America from his office were conducted with the aid of a teleprompter. I can't definitively say that Reagan strayed from the prepared text to give his personal opinions anymore than I can say that Obama sticks strictly to the teleprompter in an attempt to hide his personal opinions.
One of the greatest speeches of all time....no teleprompters.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY&feature=player_embedded# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY&feature=player_embedded#)
-
One of the greatest speeches of all time....no teleprompters.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY&feature=player_embedded# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY&feature=player_embedded#)
Because they weren't invented yet.
He's clearly reading from a thick stack of notecards.
He looks down at the podium every five seconds or so.
I hope you weren't serious.
-
One of the greatest speeches of all time....no teleprompters.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY&feature=player_embedded# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY&feature=player_embedded#)
OMG! He's frequently looking down at notecards and reading pre-planned notes and phrases! TOTAL RELIANCE!
Just a little sarcasm. Great speech and all, but it was in 1964, and teleprompters weren't used until the 80's. I would almost be willing to bet that, based upon Reagan's later use of teleprompters, he would have had them if given the chance. Not saying that anything is wrong with that, just pointing it out.
-
Because they weren't invented yet.
He's clearly reading from a thick stack of notecards.
He looks down at the podium every five seconds or so.
I hope you weren't serious.
I'm beginning to take Kaos seriously about you and your ideological reasoning. Did you ever take speech Chad? Seriously?
Notecards (or equivalent) are a norm for any speaker. I said nothing about notecards. The point here is that he was not that reliant on a freaking screen or ANYTHING else right in front of him - WORD FOR WORD - like THE ONE is for everything that comes from his mouth. If you would actually watch that speech - notecards or not - you would see its a well written speech that HE wrote. I can guarantee you those notecards had the highlights, much like an outline. Obama couldnt wear Reagans jockstrap in regards to communicating true ideals and thoughts to the public. There is a huge difference. So yes - very serious.
Vandy Vol - Reagan wrote most of his speeches or had tremendous input into them. Unlike The ONE who is pranced out in front of a teleprompter like the robot/puppet he is and told to read what is there. Ever seen what happens when it breaks?? He is lost. Its a joke. And that is not debatable - even though I think you will try to debate it since you know everything on earth. JAD has debunked everything you've thrown at him on this thread.
-
I'm beginning to take Kaos seriously about you and your ideological reasoning. Did you ever take speech Chad? Seriously?
Notecards (or equivalent) are a norm for any speaker. I said nothing about notecards. The point here is that he was not that reliant on a freaking screen or ANYTHING else right in front of him - WORD FOR WORD - like THE ONE is for everything that comes from his mouth. If you would actually watch that speech - notecards or not - you would see its a well written speech that HE wrote. I can guarantee you those notecards had the highlights, much like an outline. Obama couldnt wear Reagans jockstrap in regards to communicating true ideals and thoughts to the public. There is a huge difference. So yes - very serious.
This has nothing to do with ideology.
You're talking about what a dumbass Obama is for using a teleprompter, and as a contrasting example, praise Reagan for not using one in this speech from 1964. Well no shit, I bet he didn't have an iPhone either.
He did, however, read his speech, it appeared, sentence by sentence from notecards.
How can you argue otherwise? He literally looks down at the podium more often than he has sentence breaks in that speech.
I'm sure he authored this one. But it wasn't extemporaneous. He wrote the entire thing down meticulously, and practically read from it.
Perhaps you misinterpreted his introduction, in which he states "the sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks."
He hasn't been given a script, i.e., in this rare occasion, the speech wasn't written for him. He wrote it himself. But he still read it.
Do you really believe Reagan spouted every speech he ever orated from the top of his head? Do you even think he wrote them all? If so, then who the hell is Peggy Noonan?
I'll give you a hint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peggy_Noonan#Famous_speeches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peggy_Noonan#Famous_speeches)
Oh yeah, and he read those from a teleprompter.
-
Vandy Vol - Reagan wrote most of his speeches or had tremendous input into them. Unlike The ONE who is pranced out in front of a teleprompter like the robot/puppet he is and told to read what is there.
According to those around him, Obama spends a lot of time on his speeches and has tremendous input on them.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1837368,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1837368,00.html)
Ever seen what happens when it breaks?? He is lost. Its a joke. And that is not debatable - even though I think you will try to debate it since you know everything on earth.
I choose to respond to specific posts when I have an opinion on them, just as you obviously do. That does not indicate that I think I know everything. Having an opinion and voicing it is not a sign of self-proposed omnipotence, unless, of course, you're willing to say the same of yourself. The last time I checked, you've been more than happy to chime in with your own opinions as well.
Nonetheless, here's your debate so you can get all butt sore that not everyone agrees with you all of the time. Go ahead and spout off how this must mean that I know everything.
Obama’s ability to speak cogently and in detail without notes was exemplified by his winning three presidential debates and slaying just about every press availability he got. Writing two books – without a ghost-writer – along with some of the most significant speeches in the last 25 years is evidence of an ability to effectively communicate. Does he have his moments of screw ups? Sure; he's not an automaton. Any time you're reading a speech and you lose your place or the teleprompter screws up, you're going to have those moments. That by itself does not definitively prove that you didn't write the speech, nor does it mean that you can't speak effectively without a teleprompter. It means that you were reading a text, and the text stopped.
And let's not act as if Reagan was the perfect speaker who never screwed up. Toasting Princess Diana as "Princess David?" Calling Margaret Thatcher the "best man in England?" “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do?” Claiming that sulfur dioxide emitted from Mount St. Helens was greater than that emitted by cars over a 10-year period? Reagan even praised P.W. Botha’s apartheid regime for ridding segregation in South Africa, a mountain of a blunder that Larry Speakes had to correct a few days later. Maybe he should have stuck to the teleprompter a little more. At least, he should have if we're going to expect perfection from our presidents' orations, which is apparently what you demand.
JAD has debunked everything you've thrown at him on this thread.
Debunked everything I've said in this thread? His opening comment to me in his last post in this thread was:
Don't disagree with any of that, not at all.
Typically, when you debunk something, you don't agree with it.
-
Chad - My point is there is a distinct difference in Obama in front of a teleprompter like a robot hinging on every word (most of it not written by him) and the great orators of all time. Not even close. Churchill, Reagan, Kennedy - name one. All better than this clown. Its the manner in which he does it. Reagan was not an Ivy League writer. He conveyed the ideas and let people who were better at constructing the speech, sentences and words - do their thing. Like Sani said - it just eats me up when people go on and on about how he is such a great orator when to most people with half a brain, he is just a robot reading talking points verbatim. :thumsup:
VV - Ok Mr Semantics. Lets put it another way - every time you guys have clashed, he's beaten your ass. That better? You miss the main point most of the time and veer off on a tangent ==> i.e.- the demographic argument last week. JA (as did I) said it was the "difference". You countered by going on and on about how it made up only XX% of the electorate. This is an example of us agreeing with your statement. But you still missed the point and did not win the argument. You merely pointed out other true statements that we didn't disagree with that really had nothing to do with our original point. Please tell me this makes sense to you. And as for the TIME article - ummm shyeaah - what do you expect TIME magazine to write about their messiah? If you guys are going to call out Fox News for leaning a little to the right, then certainly I would expect you to admit that TIME, CNN and MSNBC lean HEAVILY to the LEFT - and for the last 50 years.
Ive never understood why people get so mad about Fox. Theyve been around for 10 years and lean a little to the right, but are more objective than just about any news source.
You have CNN, ABC, NY Times, CBS, NBC, TIME - who have all been to the hard LEFT for half of a century but thats ok. Makes no sense.
-
Chad - My point is there is a distinct difference in Obama in front of a teleprompter like a robot hinging on every word (most of it not written by him) and the great orators of all time. Not even close. Churchill, Reagan, Kennedy - name one. All better than this clown. Its the manner in which he does it. Reagan was not an Ivy League writer. He conveyed the ideas and let people who were better at constructing the speech, sentences and words - do their thing. Like Sani said - it just eats me up when people go on and on about how he is such a great orator when to most people with half a brain, he is just a robot reading talking points verbatim. :thumsup:
VV - Ok Mr Semantics. Lets put it another way - every time you guys have clashed, he's beaten your ass. That better? You miss the main point most of the time and veer off on a tangent ==> i.e.- the demographic argument last week. JA (as did I) said it was the "difference". You countered by going on and on about how it made up only XX% of the electorate. This is an example of us agreeing with your statement. But you still missed the point and did not win the argument. You merely pointed out other true statements that we didn't disagree with that really had nothing to do with our original point. Please tell me this makes sense to you. And as for the TIME article - ummm shyeaah - what do you expect TIME magazine to write about their messiah? If you guys are going to call out Fox News for leaning a little to the right, then certainly I would expect you to admit that TIME, CNN and MSNBC lean HEAVILY to the LEFT - and for the last 50 years.
Ive never understood why people get so mad about Fox. Theyve been around for 10 years and lean a little to the right, but are more objective than just about any news source.
You have CNN, ABC, NY Times, CBS, NBC, TIME - who have all been to the hard LEFT for half of a century but thats ok. Makes no sense.
Actually, the only difference is you don't like him (Obama).
-
Actually, the only difference is you don't like him (Obama).
And if you do, then you are a foolish man.
Palin should just explain to anyone that takes issue with this that her budget is not as big as the Kenyan Jesus' and therefore she had to create her own "teleprompter".
-
If you guys are going to call out Fox News for leaning a little to the right, then certainly I would expect you to admit that TIME, CNN and MSNBC lean HEAVILY to the LEFT - and for the last 50 years.
Ive never understood why people get so mad about Fox. Theyve been around for 10 years and lean a little to the right, but are more objective than just about any news source.
You have CNN, ABC, NY Times, CBS, NBC, TIME - who have all been to the hard LEFT for half of a century but thats ok. Makes no sense.
This is yet another statement from you where I can only say:
Really?
Those outlets you mentioned (I can maybe possibly understand MSNBC because of Maddow & Olberman, but they also have Scarborough and Buchanan to counter that) are HARD to the left, but Fox News only slightly leans to the right?
Are you being serious?
I know you think I'm some commie pinko hippie, but I don't have a dog in this fight. If I did, I tend to side with Republicans. I've never voted for a Democrat in my life. Only Republican and Libertarian.
Fox News is extremely biased. Much moreso than any of the other outlets you mentioned lean to the left.
I mean, even they readily admit it now. It's like the the WWE admitting it's fake now. The debate is over.
Now if you said The Huffington Post, or something like that, you'd have a case.
Claiming it's the other way around, as you did, is exactly like bammers saying the Birmingham News is biased against Alabama (which they have been doing recently).
-
Fox News is extremely biased. Much moreso than any of the other outlets you mentioned lean to the left.
If that is the case, then why is it that every study in the last 4 years has shown Fox to the slightly to the right.
Extremely? Really?
-
VV - Ok Mr Semantics.
I love how everyone assumes that someone is resorting to semantics when they point out what was plainly stated in a post. It appears to be some sort of default defense that many people resort to when they've realized they've misspoken. To set the record straight, semantics deals with the meanings of words, and in particular how those meanings change over time, as well as how they can be viewed by different people.
I never pointed to anything in your post and attempted to supplant a different definition than what was plainly there. You clearly stated that jadennis had debunked everything that I've thrown at him "on this thread." Maybe you meant the forum in general, but you specifically referred to this thread only. Don't attempt to scold me for playing semantics games when it was your own misstatement.
Lets put it another way - every time you guys have clashed, he's beaten your ass. That better? You miss the main point most of the time and veer off on a tangent ==> i.e.- the demographic argument last week. JA (as did I) said it was the "difference".
Both he and you missed my point. I began the conversation regarding the youth vote on that thread, and Tarheel followed up with his input. Tarheel's initial post was a direct contradiction of my own statement's when he claimed that the youth was not outvoted in the 2008 election. I showed that this was untrue, as there were more votes from other generations than from the youth. It was then you, in response to our debate, who stated that the youth elected "these idiots in DC." This implied, and your subsequent posts explicitly affirmed, that you viewed the youth as the reason as to why Obama won. You even went as far as to make incorrect statements, such as: "The only difference in this election from the last is the increase of voters between 18-29." You completely ignored my explanation of how other generations also had a change in voting pattern which resulted in more votes for Obama; the youth's change in voting patterns was not the only difference.
You can't state that the youth was the one and only difference because of their change in voting patterns when other age groups also experienced a change in voting patterns that favored Obama. You especially can't exclaim that this change amongst the youth was the reason for a Democrat's victory when Obama would have won even if the youth voted as they did in 2004 (jadennis's point, not mine). Jadennis picked up on this at the later stages of our discussion, because he then changed his language to include adjectives that were not mentioned in his previous posts. He was no longer stating that it was the difference, but rather the biggest, most drastic, and larger of the differences. That is more accurate, and I acknowledged as much.
Oh, and let's not forget that in that thread, jadennis also admitted that he was not arguing against my statements, and that my statements were true:
By the way, I'm not arguing against your points, they are all valid in the sense that you're making them. And while what you're saying is (still) true, you still seem to not be grasping the point. Well, you kind of are grasping it, but not realizing it maybe...
And:
I think you (Vandy Vol) and Tarheel are both right in your assessments, it's just a matter of what is being focused on.
If you really felt the irresistible desire to inform me of exactly how bad my ass is getting beaten by other people on an internet forum, then you could have at least picked out someone who doesn't consistently agree with me.
And as for the TIME article - ummm shyeaah - what do you expect TIME magazine to write about their messiah?
The same thing that I expect Republicans to speak about their messiah. You know, things concerning him being the best orator ever and never screwing up a speech or lying to the American public. Good thing Reagan never misspoke and that the Iran-Contra affair was fictitious...oh wait...
-
If that is the case, then why is it that every study in the last 4 years has shown Fox to the slightly to the right.
Extremely? Really?
Link?
I'd love to see this study that shows Fox News is only slightly to the right, while every single other media outlet outside of Republican journals leans extremely to the left.
-
Link?
I'd love to see this study that shows Fox News is only slightly to the right, while every single other media outlet outside of Republican journals leans extremely to the left.
www.foxnews.com (http://www.foxnews.com)
Whatever dude, it was a foxnews poll.
-
During the Bush presidency, Fox continually stayed on Bush for many things, while all the others stayed on Bush for EVERYTHING. And they were considered slightly right. Now they are staying on the same things but rightfully adding more criticism to the idiot issues of the ONE, and they are considered "extremely" right?
It looks like to me that they are slightly right but call it the same according to who is in office. If they were an extremely right news outlet, they would have hailed GWB as the next coming of Jes.....
Oh wait. That is what the slightly left media are doing now. Hmmm.
-
Voters See All Networks with Bias (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/media/voters_see_all_networks_with_bias)
More Voices, Less Credibility (http://pewresearch.org/assets/files/trends2005-media.pdf)
Cable TV: Content Analysis (http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2005/narrative_cabletv_contentanalysis.asp?cat=2&media=5)
These links show a variety of things. The first shows that CBS is considered by those surveyed as the most biased, with Fox News coming in second. The other networks are noticeably behind.
The second shows that more Republicans watch Fox News, and that more Democrats watch CNN. Oddly enough, however, although there are more Democrats that watch CNN than Republicans, the Republicans surveyed watch CNN almost as much as they do Fox News. The other networks have a relatively even distribution. There is actually a variety of statistics in this study, but the conclusions are telling:
"The core audiences for several news and opinion outlets such as The O’Reilly Factor and Rush Limbaugh’s show are increasingly dominated by conservatives. But the audiences for many other major news organizations remain fairly balanced ideologically . . ."
"In addition, the regular CNN audience does not stand out ideologically, although it is somewhat more Democratic than in the past."
The third link is probably the most informational. Its study showed that CNN tended to air more points of view in its stories than others, and its reporters rarely offered their own opinions. Nearly seven out of ten of Fox News stories (68%) included personal opinions from Fox's reporters. Just 4% of CNN segments included journalistic opinion, and 27% on MSNBC.
Fox journalists were even more prone to offer their own opinions in the channel's coverage of the war in Iraq: 73% of the stories included such personal judgments. On CNN the figure was 2%, and on MSNBC, 29%. The same was true in coverage of the Presidential election, where 82% of Fox stories included journalist opinions, compared to 7% on CNN and 27% on MSNBC.
When it came to the war, Fox again looked different from the others by being distinctly more positive than negative. Fully 38% of Fox segments were overwhelmingly positive in tone, more than double the 14% of segments that were negative. Still, stories were as likely to be neutral as positive (39%) and another 9% were multi-subject stories for which tone did not apply.
On CNN, in contrast, 41% of stories were neutral in tone on the 20 days studied, and positive and negative stories were almost equally likely -- 20% positive, 23% negative. Some 15% were multi-faceted and not coded for tone. MSNBC's stories about the war were most likely to include several issues or subjects, so that no one area could be coded for tone. Fully four in ten stories were of this nature. Otherwise, the network's coverage, like CNN's, was more neutral (28%) with positive and negative stories almost equally prevalent, (16% positive and 17% negative).
-
Voters See All Networks with Bias (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/media/voters_see_all_networks_with_bias)
More Voices, Less Credibility (http://pewresearch.org/assets/files/trends2005-media.pdf)
Cable TV: Content Analysis (http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2005/narrative_cabletv_contentanalysis.asp?cat=2&media=5)
These links show a variety of things. The first shows that CBS is considered by those surveyed as the most biased, with Fox News coming in second. The other networks are noticeably behind.
The second shows that more Republicans watch Fox News, and that more Democrats watch CNN. Oddly enough, however, although there are more Democrats that watch CNN than Republicans, the Republicans surveyed watch CNN almost as much as they do Fox News. The other networks have a relatively even distribution. There is actually a variety of statistics in this study, but the conclusions are telling:
"The core audiences for several news and opinion outlets such as The O’Reilly Factor and Rush Limbaugh’s show are increasingly dominated by conservatives. But the audiences for many other major news organizations remain fairly balanced ideologically . . ."
"In addition, the regular CNN audience does not stand out ideologically, although it is somewhat more Democratic than in the past."
The third link is probably the most informational. Its study showed that CNN tended to air more points of view in its stories than others, and its reporters rarely offered their own opinions. Nearly seven out of ten of Fox News stories (68%) included personal opinions from Fox's reporters. Just 4% of CNN segments included journalistic opinion, and 27% on MSNBC.
Fox journalists were even more prone to offer their own opinions in the channel's coverage of the war in Iraq: 73% of the stories included such personal judgments. On CNN the figure was 2%, and on MSNBC, 29%. The same was true in coverage of the Presidential election, where 82% of Fox stories included journalist opinions, compared to 7% on CNN and 27% on MSNBC.
When it came to the war, Fox again looked different from the others by being distinctly more positive than negative. Fully 38% of Fox segments were overwhelmingly positive in tone, more than double the 14% of segments that were negative. Still, stories were as likely to be neutral as positive (39%) and another 9% were multi-subject stories for which tone did not apply.
On CNN, in contrast, 41% of stories were neutral in tone on the 20 days studied, and positive and negative stories were almost equally likely -- 20% positive, 23% negative. Some 15% were multi-faceted and not coded for tone. MSNBC's stories about the war were most likely to include several issues or subjects, so that no one area could be coded for tone. Fully four in ten stories were of this nature. Otherwise, the network's coverage, like CNN's, was more neutral (28%) with positive and negative stories almost equally prevalent, (16% positive and 17% negative).
Notice too that those articles you supplied were from 2004-2005.
It may be due to my own ideological shift from that time, but I see Fox being way more guilty of this now than they were back then.
-
Wow... You guys are still talking about this. Amazing...
And, Fox is more biased than ABC, NBC, CNN and <fill in the blank>? Again, WOW...
It looks like the Democrats are winning again. They seem to have pulled your focus from the key issues to only redirect you towards the rat turds. Don't ask, don't tell... Sarah Palin's crib notes... And, I bet some of you believe that this "Health Care Summit" is an actual bipartisan debate...
Some people are sheep, while others are lemmings...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK1jMHE1bkw# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK1jMHE1bkw#)
-
Wow... You guys are still talking about this. Amazing...
And, Fox is more biased than ABC, NBC, CNN and <fill in the blank>? Again, WOW...
It looks like the Democrats are winning again. They seem to have pulled your focus from the key issues to only redirect you towards the rat turds. Don't ask, don't tell... Sarah Palin's crib notes... And, I bet some of you believe that this "Health Care Summit" is an actual bipartisan debate...
Some people are sheep, while others are lemmings...
Yeah, another example of how ONLY Fox News isn't biased. Only THEY tell you the truth that the Health Care Summit is a dirty trap instead of a bi-partisan debate.
Please enlighten me, how is it NOT a bi-partisan debate?
Are there not equal parts Republicans and Democrats there? Do they not get equal time to speak?
It's on right now. Watch it for yourself. Don't watch it on biased CNN though! They are showing it uncut without "fair and balanced" interpretations interlaced.
-
Wow... You guys are still talking about this. Amazing...
And, Fox is more biased than ABC, NBC, CNN and <fill in the blank>? Again, WOW...
It looks like the Democrats are winning again. They seem to have pulled your focus from the key issues to only redirect you towards the rat turds. Don't ask, don't tell... Sarah Palin's crib notes... And, I bet some of you believe that this "Health Care Summit" is an actual bipartisan debate...
Kind of like how Republicans attempted to redirect people by making a fuss about teleprompters, the half-hour delay of the a World Series baseball game because of Obama's advertisement, or the fact that the current administration Mirandized a terrorist in FBI custody when the Bush administration did the same for Richard Reid.
-
Yeah, another example of how ONLY Fox News isn't biased. Only THEY tell you the truth that the Health Care Summit is a dirty trap instead of a bi-partisan debate.
Please enlighten me, how is it NOT a bi-partisan debate?
Are there not equal parts Republicans and Democrats there? Do they not get equal time to speak?
It's on right now. Watch it for yourself. Don't watch it on biased CNN though! They are showing it uncut without "fair and balanced" interpretations interlaced.
Are you kidding me? The only reason they're doing this is because they failed to pass it among their own ranks and because the Republicans have called attention to them railroading this thing without any discourse. The Democrats have been going for an entire year behind closed doors excluding the Republicans at every turn. The Democrats themselves didn't even know what was in the last bill, and if you called attention to specifics, they whined about you being unfair to them. Let's seriously see what happens...
Perhaps, they're allowing for the "open discussion" now, but I seriously doubt there will be any real changes to the bill. Harry Reed has clearly stated that this "summit" will not change what they've already put in the "bill"... They've already been painting the Republicans as "obstructionists" to this stupid thing, and they've already claimed that the Republicans don't have any alternative plans or ideas. Of course, there are dozens of Republican ideas, but the Democrats have refused to consider or even hear them. You don't always learn about that on CNN, MSNBC, ABC or CBS... But, if you do a little surfing on the Interwebs, you'd be surprised how many ideas exist on the homepages of various Republican politicians across the House and Senate. I guess the Interwebs must be a right-wing conspiracy just as much as Fox...
-
Kind of like how Republicans attempted to redirect people by making a fuss about teleprompters, the half-hour delay of the a World Series baseball game because of Obama's advertisement, or the fact that the current administration Mirandized a terrorist in FBI custody when the Bush administration did the same for Richard Reid.
Of course, when the Democrats do it, it's not a problem, but when the Republicans do it, it's a crime against humanity... By the way, Richard Reid was arrested on US soil by civilian law enforcement. The last time I checked, they're required to Mirandize those they arrest.
-
Of course, when the Democrats do it, it's not a problem, but when the Republicans do it, it's a crime against humanity... By the way, Richard Reid was arrested on US soil by civilian law enforcement. The last time I checked, they're required to Mirandize those they arrest.
I never stated that it was acceptable for either party to do it; I merely pointed out that both parties are doing it.
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the individual who was Mirandized under this administration, was also taken into custody on U.S. soil by civilian law enforcement. Nonetheless, many Republicans called for Brennan to step down from his position because of this.
-
I never stated that it was acceptable for either party to do it; I merely pointed out that both parties are doing it.
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the individual who was Mirandized under this administration, was also taken into custody on U.S. soil by civilian law enforcement. Nonetheless, many Republicans called for Brennan to step down from his position because of this.
Look, I realize that you're sort of new around here and gay-friendly. I'm no Republipuke and not gay-friendly. Both parties suck. I hate the neo-con movement in the Republican party about as much as I hate Liberals/Socialists and Democrats and those "enlightened" gay-friendly people.
As for Fox, they're no more biased than the drive-by lame-stream media. In fact, I would suggest that they're probabaly less-biased towards a particular party or individual, especially when you acknowledge how critical they were of GWB and his administration.
The whole Mirandize stink came up from Barry's request to Mirandize those who were in custody in Afghanastan, Iraq and Gitmo. When the shoe bomber was arrested, it just served as fuel to an already volatile situation. Bush never requested that we extend Miranda protections to terrorists, onshore or offshore, so the comparison is unreasonable at best.
-
Look, I realize that you're sort of new around here and gay-friendly. I'm no Republipuke and not gay-friendly. Both parties suck. I hate the neo-con movement in the Republican party about as much as I hate Liberals/Socialists and Democrats and those "enlightened" gay-friendly people.
As for Fox, they're no more biased than the drive-by lame-stream media. In fact, I would suggest that they're probabaly less-biased towards a particular party or individual, especially when you acknowledge how critical they were of GWB and his administration.
The whole Mirandize stink came up from Barry's request to Mirandize those who were in custody in Afghanastan, Iraq and Gitmo. When the shoe bomber was arrested, it just served as fuel to an already volatile situation. Bush never requested that we extend Miranda protections to terrorists, onshore or offshore, so the comparison is unreasonable at best.
So you don't like either party, and hate their tactics to redirect topics elsewhere, yet you bring up an issue about homosexuals which is irrelevant to this thread? Hypocrisy doesn't require a political affiliation.
The whole "Mirandize stink" regarding Brennan specifically had nothing to do with Obama's views on Mirandizing in Afghanistan. The Republicans did not ask Brennan to step down because he had Mirandized a terrorist in a foreign country, nor did they ask him to step down because he believed that terrorists in foreign countries should be Mirandized. Rather, they asked him to step down because a terrorist was arrested on U.S. soil and Mirandized. This is, as you mentioned, not only customary for those arrested on U.S. soil, but it was exactly what happened with Richard Reid under the Bush administration.
I do not point this out to make a stance for Democrats or Republicans. Rather, I point it out because it exemplifies the fact that both parties have been making stinks regarding issues and events about which stinks should not have been made.
As for Fox not being biased or being less biased, you might want to check the three studies cited above. I know, I know...you hate studies, polls, surveys, and any attempts not made by you to ascertain public opinion and statistical facts. But unless you've started working on getting your "$10M gubm’et grant to conduct such a study," it's all we've got. Unless, of course, we're all supposed to just nod our heads in agreement when you or CCTAU make conclusive statements without supporting evidence.
-
So you don't like either party, and hate their tactics to redirect topics elsewhere, yet you bring up an issue about homosexuals which is irrelevant to this thread? Hypocrisy doesn't require a political affiliation.
It has nothing to do wiff hypocrisy... So, have fun with it...
The whole "Mirandize stink" regarding Brennan specifically had nothing to do with Obama's views on Mirandizing in Afghanistan. The Republicans did not ask Brennan to step down because he had Mirandized a terrorist in a foreign country, nor did they ask him to step down because he believed that terrorists in foreign countries should be Mirandized. Rather, they asked him to step down because a terrorist was arrested on U.S. soil and Mirandized. This is, as you mentioned, not only customary for those arrested on U.S. soil, but it was exactly what happened with Richard Reid under the Bush administration.
I do not point this out to make a stance for Democrats or Republicans. Rather, I point it out because it exemplifies the fact that both parties have been making stinks regarding issues and events about which stinks should not have been made.
Actually, I have to completely disagree with you on this one. Long before he was elected, the candidate O'bama was foolishly suggesting the extension of Miranda and other Constitutional protections to our detainees in Gitmo and elsewhere. After the election, there were rumors of an unofficial order to begin Mirandizing these detainees. The whole stink regarding Brennan was exactly related to the Obummer. There were questions as to whether he Mirandized UFA not because it was standard practice by a civilian law enforcement agency during an arrest, but because he was following an order by Barry. Was it overblown? Sure...
As for Fox not being biased or being less biased, you might want to check the three studies cited above. I know, I know...you hate studies, polls, surveys, and any attempts not made by you to ascertain public opinion and statistical facts. But unless you've started working on getting your "$10M gubm’et grant to conduct such a study," it's all we've got. Unless, of course, we're all supposed to just nod our heads in agreement when you or CCTAU make conclusive statements without supporting evidence.
Again, here's another example of a so-called study that's really just based on the opinions of others. That's evidence??? Do you really think that a typical person even understands the differences across Socialism, Fascism and Communism anymore? I have a distinct feeling that most would consider the founders of our country to be a bunch of right-wing lunatics if they were alive today. After all, a Modern American Conservative is really only a Jeffersonian Liberal. We’ve even had Democrats trying to call GWB a right winger, while he was passing some of the largest spending bills in the history of our country… Well, until Obama. So, calling Fox biased towards the right makes about as much sense as calling Barry a genius. It's based on mis-guided opinions supported by deranged perceptions of reality and nurtured in government indoctrination centers (aka public schools). With the rapid downbreeding of society, my point of reference may be a few generations older than these silly studies.
By the way, I suppose "scientific consensus" is evidence too... Once upon a time, that “scientific consensus” told us that the earth was flat. Later, it told us that the earth was the center of the universe. So, please permit me to be somewhat of a skeptic when it comes to opinions that somebody tabulates and publishes in a paper, and later calls a “study”.
-
It has nothing to do wiff hypocrisy... So, have fun with it...
Stating that you dislike when politicians sidetrack debates by bringing up irrelevant topics and then bringing up irrelevant topics in a political discussion = hypocrisy.
Actually, I have to completely disagree with you on this one. Long before he was elected, the candidate O'bama was foolishly suggesting the extension of Miranda and other Constitutional protections to our detainees in Gitmo and elsewhere. After the election, there were rumors of an unofficial order to begin Mirandizing these detainees. The whole stink regarding Brennan was exactly related to the Obummer. There were questions as to whether he Mirandized UFA not because it was standard practice by a civilian law enforcement agency during an arrest, but because he was following an order by Barry. Was it overblown? Sure...
I don't think you're getting my point.
Regardless of what Obama's opinion on the topic is or when they first started discussing the topic in relation to terrorists captured abroad, Republicans did not state that they wanted Brennan to step down because of Obama's opinion on Miranda rights and terrorists captured in foreign countries. They were directly concerned with Brennan's actions in this particular instance. It had nothing to do with Obama's stance on Mirandizing in foreign countries, as the Mirandizing did not occur in a foreign country. In fact, it didn't even involve Obama, as he was not the one who gave the order.
They explicitly claimed that the policy of Mirandizing terrorists who are arrested on U.S. soil should be changed, and that those who follow that policy should step down. They pointed to Brennan specifically, not Obama, and required that he step down because he ordered a terrorist arrested on U.S. soil to be Mirandized. Strangely enough, Republicans had no problem with Richard Reid being Mirandized while the Bush administration was present. They weren't attempting to punish Brennan for something he did that was in line with Obama's beliefs. In fact, they weren't even attempting to punish Brennan for doing something that the Republicans wouldn't or didn't do. They were attempting to force him into stepping down because he did the exact same thing that the Republicans did a year earlier.
Again, here's another example of a so-called study that's really just based on the opinions of others. That's evidence??? Do you really think that a typical person even understands the differences across Socialism, Fascism and Communism anymore?
Yes, of course. The fact that X number of people who watch Fox identify themselves as Republican is an opinion; it's not a fact that is verifiable in any way. I guess counting the number of apples on a table is also opinionated. Oh, and, let me guess, counting the number of stories on the Iraq war that treat the war in a positive manner as opposed to a negative manner is also opinionated? Man, I didn't know that counting and deriving percentages from numbers was so opinionated...
Even if such surveys and polls are opinionated, what would you like us to do? Nod our heads in agreement that your opinion is the correct one, regardless of what three separate surveys tell us? Accept your opinion as the truth simply because you muttered it, regardless of the fact that you don't actually point out any premises for your conclusion? Yes massa GarMan, we'll never stray from yo undeniably true opinions evah again. Everuhthin' you say be the truf boss. We won't be lissnin' to no polls that show an overwhelmin' majorituh of people think otherwise.
I have a distinct feeling that most would consider the founders of our country to be a bunch of right-wing lunatics if they were alive today. After all, a Modern American Conservative is really only a Jeffersonian Liberal.
Unless the people polled were 300 years old and were born in the 1700's, I'm pretty sure they were answering questions about media political bias based upon our present day conceptions of what is conservative and what is liberal. No one has claimed that Fox has a conservative bias based upon conservatism from 300 years ago; we're talking about today's political ideologies.
In fact, we're not even really talking about ideologies at all. The polls dealt with Republicans and Democrats. Regardless of the fact that Republicans may be acting more liberal than they have in the past, the polls are identifying that Fox has a strong Republican bias, and CBS has a strong Democratic bias. No where in the polls did they ask about conservatism or liberalism.
By the way, I suppose "scientific consensus" is evidence too... Once upon a time, that “scientific consensus” told us that the earth was flat. Later, it told us that the earth was the center of the universe. So, please permit me to be somewhat of a skeptic when it comes to opinions that somebody tabulates and publishes in a paper, and later calls a “study”.
Invalid analogy, unless you are proposing that the survey itself is flawed factually. When people thought the Earth was flat, their premises were flawed. They assumed a lot of things based on incorrect perceptions and a lack of technology to properly perceive celestial objects.
Taking a poll is pretty simple. It doesn't require the invention and application of the Pythagorean Theorem or the Hubble Telescope. You're not relying upon your perception of celestial objects millions of miles away to estimate their responses. They identify themselves as Republican, Democrat, or other, and they tell you what their views are about specific network stations. They also study the number of stories, the number of times journalists give their personal opinions, the number of times stories treat X issue in Y manner, etc., and then derive percentages from those numbers. We're not dealing with the mysteries of the universe here. We're calculating verifiable data.
Oh no! I be sorry massa! I done went and forgot that I wasn't suppose to be talkin' bout them polls. They be the devil! Askin' people what they thinks and then calcumulatin' percentages...those results don't be nothin' compared to you, boss! Everuhthin' you believe is how it actually is in the world.
-
Oh no! I be sorry massa! I done went and forgot that I wasn't suppose to be talkin' bout them polls. They be the devil! Askin' people what they thinks and then calcumulatin' percentages...those results don't be nothin' compared to you, boss! Everuhthin' you believe is how it actually is in the world.
Now that you have recognized your place once again, bring me a mint julep, bitch.
-
Stating that you dislike when politicians sidetrack debates by bringing up irrelevant topics and then bringing up irrelevant topics in a political discussion = hypocrisy.
At this point, you're just whining... You can't take a friendly, light-hearted jab and move on. And actually, this is very relevant to my original post in this thread where I contended that the Democrats have successfully redirected our focus to the "rat turds" of issues... DADT from another thread, etc...
I don't think you're getting my point.
Regardless of what Obama's opinion on the topic is or when they first started discussing the topic in relation to terrorists captured abroad, Republicans did not state that they wanted Brennan to step down because of Obama's opinion on Miranda rights and terrorists captured in foreign countries. They were directly concerned with Brennan's actions in this particular instance. It had nothing to do with Obama's stance on Mirandizing in foreign countries, as the Mirandizing did not occur in a foreign country. In fact, it didn't even involve Obama, as he was not the one who gave the order.
You're completely wrong on this point. It was Obama's espoused position regarding the Mirandizing of terrorists that brought this up as an issue in the first place. Was Brennan adopting an unwritten Obama policy of Mirandizing terrorists, or was he just following standard operating procedure? Was this an example of Obama's administration and lackys pushing forward the Mirandizing of terrorists? It has everything to do with Obama, his administration and his policies. Brennan was just the sap at the center of it.
They explicitly claimed that the policy of Mirandizing terrorists who are arrested on U.S. soil should be changed, and that those who follow that policy should step down. They pointed to Brennan specifically, not Obama, and required that he step down because he ordered a terrorist arrested on U.S. soil to be Mirandized. Strangely enough, Republicans had no problem with Richard Reid being Mirandized while the Bush administration was present. They weren't attempting to punish Brennan for something he did that was in line with Obama's beliefs. In fact, they weren't even attempting to punish Brennan for doing something that the Republicans wouldn't or didn't do. They were attempting to force him into stepping down because he did the exact same thing that the Republicans did a year earlier.
Exactly, but that "change" was being pushed to challenge and block Obama from extending rights to terrorists. That's it...
Yes, of course. The fact that X number of people who watch Fox identify themselves as Republican is an opinion; it's not a fact that is verifiable in any way. I guess counting the number of apples on a table is also opinionated. Oh, and, let me guess, counting the number of stories on the Iraq war that treat the war in a positive manner as opposed to a negative manner is also opinionated? Man, I didn't know that counting and deriving percentages from numbers was so opinionated...
Well actually... Opinions are one thing, but the quantity of apples is another.
Even if such surveys and polls are opinionated, what would you like us to do?
Not using them as "evidence" would be a good start.
Nod our heads in agreement...
You've completely missed my point. There's obviously no reasoning with you.
Invalid analogy...
You've missed the point again... If you convince a bunch of Russians or North Koreans that Americans are greedy monsters who bite the heads off small children, would you rely on that focus group to conduct opinion surveys about America as relevant to Americans? Similarly... Nevermind... Why am I even trying...
It's all based on perception and points of reference. My point of reference is clearly 2-3 generations before your's. That's it. I recognize the mainstream media as being far left of "my established center" with Fox only being slightly right of "my established center". If "your established center" has grown comfortable with gay-friendly sitcoms, Oprah Winfrey and The View, you likely see things much different than I.
-
You're completely wrong on this point. It was Obama's espoused position regarding the Mirandizing of terrorists that brought this up as an issue in the first place. Was Brennan adopting an unwritten Obama policy of Mirandizing terrorists, or was he just following standard operating procedure? Was this an example of Obama's administration and lackys pushing forward the Mirandizing of terrorists? It has everything to do with Obama, his administration and his policies. Brennan was just the sap at the center of it.
Considering that the Bush administration took the exact same actions a year earlier, it can not be argued that this is a policy implemented by the Obama administration. Even if you stubbornly contend that it is an implementation by this administration of some unwritten law, despite the fact that it was standard operating procedure for the Bush administration, the fact still stands that the previous administration took the exact same action, yet the Republicans were not calling for anyone to step down then.
Exactly, but that "change" was being pushed to challenge and block Obama from extending rights to terrorists. That's it...
The rights of terrorists arrested on U.S. soil to be Mirandized were already extended by the Bush administration the previous year. There is no new extension of rights that Republicans were attempting to block, as no new rights were extended by Brennan's actions.
The government currently has Medicare, and has had it for years now. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that the Republicans would be in the right for asking a Democrat to step down because that Democrat implemented an already existing policy regarding Medicare, simply because Obama was pushing for a new healthcare reform unrelated to Medicare. The reform that Obama is pushing for has nothing to do with policies that have already been implemented. If it was legal for Republicans to do it a year earlier, then there is no reason to force Brennan to step down, absent some sort of legislation passed which alters the rights of terrorists on U.S. soil.
Not using them as "evidence" would be a good start.
Then, in turn, I would ask that you stop using your sole opinion as evidence. Afterall, if the opinions of a multitude of people surveyed don't count for anything, then your single opinion certainly doesn't.
It's all based on perception and points of reference. My point of reference is clearly 2-3 generations before your's. That's it. I recognize the mainstream media as being far left of "my established center" with Fox only being slightly right of "my established center". If "your established center" has grown comfortable with gay-friendly sitcoms, Oprah Winfrey and The View, you likely see things much different than I.
I have no problem with this statement. If you view Fox as slightly right of your views, then that is your opinion based upon your individual political ideology.
However, when we talk of a station having a left or right slant, we are not comparing the station to someone who is already leaning right. That starts us out with a bias, because it makes stations which lean slightly left appear more left than they are because we're comparing them with a right-leaning individual. Saying that something has a "left slant" means it leans to the left of something, and saying that something has a "right slant" means it leans to the right of something. That "something" is a centrist view, which is based upon present day conceptions of Republicans and Democrats.
Even if you want to argue that the classification of what is "centrist" is an opinion and not something verifiable by data, the studies cited did not refer to centrists, conservatives and liberals; it referred to Democrats and Republicans, which are classifications that can be verified.
More self proposed Republicans watch Fox News. The number of stories which treated the Iraq war, a war initiated by a Republican administration, in a positive light were much higher on Fox News than other news stations. Fox News has more admitted Republican journalists and editors (many of which came from the Bush administration) than other news stations, and Fox News' journalists give their personal opinions on stories more often than other news stations. Other stations present more points of view, whereas Fox News routinely has mostly Republicans as guests, and they present stories in a fashion that favor Republicans more often than other news stations.
These are all quantifiable and verifiable numbers that indicate that Fox News has more of a Republican lean than other stations have a Democratic lean. Thus, they "lean Republican," or in other words favor Republicans and Republican stories, moreso than other stations "lean Democratic" or favor Democratic guests and Democratic stories. The percentages show that they "lean Republican" moreso than other stations "lean Democratic," which shows that, relatively speaking, they have an extreme Republican slant. Even if you feel uneasy quantifying it as "extreme," it is still statistically higher than other stations, so statements that X stations have an extreme Democratic slant while Fox has only a slight Republican slant are untrue; the statistics show that Fox's Republican slant is greater than other stations' Democratic slants.
-
Now that you have recognized your place once again, bring me a mint julep, bitch.
You're in luck; my mint juleps are the bomb.
-
Considering that the Bush administration took the exact same actions a year earlier, it can not be argued that this is a policy implemented by the Obama administration. Even if you stubbornly contend that it is an implementation by this administration of some unwritten law, despite the fact that it was standard operating procedure for the Bush administration, the fact still stands that the previous administration took the exact same action, yet the Republicans were not calling for anyone to step down then.
The rights of terrorists arrested on U.S. soil to be Mirandized were already extended by the Bush administration the previous year. There is no new extension of rights that Republicans were attempting to block, as no new rights were extended by Brennan's actions.
It most certainly can be argued that this is an Obama move purely because Obama has stated this to be part of his planned policies. It doesn't matter that it happened while Bush was in the White House, as we've already established that it was standard operating procedure at the time. That's it! There's nothing more to this. You contend that under Obama, they were still acting under the standard operating procedure. I don't necessarily disagree, but when Brennan admittedly acknowledged his intent to carry out those policies put forth by the Obama administration, the scuttlebutt ensued. You want to call it hypocrisy... I disagree.
The government currently has Medicare, and has had it for years now. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that the Republicans would be in the right for asking a Democrat to step down because that Democrat implemented an already existing policy regarding Medicare, simply because Obama was pushing for a new healthcare reform unrelated to Medicare. The reform that Obama is pushing for has nothing to do with policies that have already been implemented. If it was legal for Republicans to do it a year earlier, then there is no reason to force Brennan to step down, absent some sort of legislation passed which alters the rights of terrorists on U.S. soil.
You're stretching... Now, if Obama wanted to extend Medicare to illegal aliens and a Democrat did so with the intent to support or carry out Obama's intent, or there was suspicion of doing so, then you'd have a comparison. For now, this means nothing.
Then, in turn, I would ask that you stop using your sole opinion as evidence. Afterall, if the opinions of a multitude of people surveyed don't count for anything, then your single opinion certainly doesn't.
As I've suggested, the masses are not good measures for such a determination. Political opinion in this country changes about as frequently as the weather patterns. Further complicating matters, we have continually downbread our society for the sake of protecting the "equality" of our lowest common denominators to the point where most can't even deliniate the differences between a Socialist, Fascist or Communist. Do you really think a reasonable comparison could be established? I don't for the reasons I have already stated.
I have no problem with this statement. If you view Fox as slightly right of your views, then that is your opinion based upon your individual political ideology.
However, when we talk of a station having a left or right slant, we are not comparing the station to someone who is already leaning right. That starts us out with a bias, because it makes stations which lean slightly left appear more left than they are because we're comparing them with a right-leaning individual. Saying that something has a "left slant" means it leans to the left of something, and saying that something has a "right slant" means it leans to the right of something. That "something" is a centrist view, which is based upon present day conceptions of Republicans and Democrats.
I think we're in violent agreement here. I just scoff at the concept of Fox being considered "undeniably pro-Republican" when they have been so critical of so many Republican politicians. I don't see the same level of critical analysis of Democrat leaders on the Communist News Network and other lamestream outlets. Those who seem to bitch about Fox the most have a hard leaning bias of their own.
Even if you want to argue that the classification of what is "centrist" is an opinion and not something verifiable by data, the studies cited did not refer to centrists, conservatives and liberals; it referred to Democrats and Republicans, which are classifications that can be verified.
More self proposed Republicans watch Fox News. The number of stories which treated the Iraq war, a war initiated by a Republican administration, in a positive light were much higher on Fox News than other news stations. Fox News has more admitted Republican journalists and editors (many of which came from the Bush administration) than other news stations, and Fox News' journalists give their personal opinions on stories more often than other news stations. Other stations present more points of view, whereas Fox News routinely has mostly Republicans as guests, and they present stories in a fashion that favor Republicans more often than other news stations.
So, because the war was initiated by a "Republican" administration, any favorable story portreying the successes of the war effort are somehow biased... :blink: The same could be said of the lamestream media when Clinton bombed the Iraq asperin factories, but that probably slipped the minds of those being polled in these so-called studies. Do you understand my point there?
These are all quantifiable and verifiable numbers that indicate that Fox News has more of a Republican lean than other stations have a Democratic lean. Thus, they "lean Republican," or in other words favor Republicans and Republican stories, moreso than other stations "lean Democratic" or favor Democratic guests and Democratic stories. The percentages show that they "lean Republican" moreso than other stations "lean Democratic," which shows that, relatively speaking, they have an extreme Republican slant. Even if you feel uneasy quantifying it as "extreme," it is still statistically higher than other stations, so statements that X stations have an extreme Democratic slant while Fox has only a slight Republican slant are untrue; the statistics show that Fox's Republican slant is greater than other stations' Democratic slants.
If you understand my point above, these "quantifiable and verifiable numbers" are a joke at best. When the lamestream media references GWB with such inconsistencies as "Bush", "Mr. Bush" and other non-authoritative titles, while referencing The Obama as "The President" and "President Obama" (They did the same with Clinton, by the way, against Bush 41 and Bush 43.), would you not think this undermining disrespect plays on the minds of the masses thereby moving the so-called center a little more to the left over time?
-
Yessuh boss! I'll never read a study again! I just be lissnin' to yo words when I be needin' the truf.
-
Yessuh boss! I'll never read a study again! I just be lissnin' to yo words when I be needin' the truf.
Figures... So, if I understand your sarcasim, you don't believe that our society is moving more and more to the left every generation. Where the center is located today is where the center has always been... The left hasn't flooded the schools and media with their finest neer-do-wells... And, political opinion is about as fixed as hot and cold... Right!
And, the world is flat.
-
Figures... So, if I understand your sarcasim, you don't believe that our society is moving more and more to the left every generation. Where the center is located today is where the center has always been... The left hasn't flooded the schools and media with their finest neer-do-wells... And, political opinion is about as fixed as hot and cold... Right!
And, the world is flat.
Yessuh boss! Despite the fact that the poll be speakin' of Demuhcrats and Republiguns, which I be thinkin' was identimifiable political parties and not them vague opinioniminated ideologies you be speakin' of, I see the erruhs in muh ways and don't question you at all, massa!
-
Yessuh boss! Despite the fact that the poll be speakin' of Demuhcrats and Republiguns, which I be thinkin' was identimifiable political parties and not them vague opinioniminated ideologies you be speakin' of, I see the erruhs in muh ways and don't question you at all, massa!
Right... How's that economic system in Kenya working out, boy? :rimshot:
-
How's that war going in the fictitious country of "Afghanastan," old man? Have you visited the region so that you can bestow upon us your infallible personal opinion? If not, then would you rely upon surveys and studies to inform you about what's going on in make believe land?
-
How's that war going in the fictitious country of "Afghanastan," old man?
That one-letter-typo has got you all up in a tizzy... At least, I didn't go into a know-it-all wiki rant over something I didn't understand. How's this for stats and evidence for you, boy?
Wow... It looks like that right-wing, pro-Republican Fox News has something that some of those other media outlets are missing... I think they call them viewers. It must be another one of those "vast right-wing conspiracies"!!!
Cable News Ratings for Thursday, February 25, 2010
Posted on 26 February 2010 by Bill Gorman
Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for February 25, 2010
P2+ Total Day
FNC – 1,658,000 viewers
CNN – 719,000 viewers
MSNBC –755,000 viewers
CNBC – 273,000 viewers
HLN – 327,000 viewers
P2+ Prime Time
FNC – 2,857,000 viewers
CNN – 709,000 viewers
MSNBC –1,845,000 viewers
CNBC – 248,000 viewers
HLN –612,000 viewers
http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratings/cable-news (http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratings/cable-news)
-
Kind of like a transposition of letters has you in a tizzy? Tit for tat, old man.
Oh, and I wasn't aware that the Rasmussen Reports, Pew Research Center and Journalism.org were "wiki rants." At any rate, I would rather go into an informed know-it-all rant that utilizes some form of evidence than an egotistical know-it-all rant based upon my own opinion and my comparisons of news stations to my own individual political stances.
As far as the ratings, I could care less for three reasons:
1.) I rarely watch television, especially not television news, so I don't have any allegiances to stations or shows. I could give a rat's ass if Sesame Street's Christmas Special gets more viewers in one day than any news station does in a ten year period.
2.) The number of viewers that a station has does not prove or disprove anything about the political slant of the station. For whatever reason, you've decided to proudly cite this poll as if it has some bearing on the current discussion regarding Fox News.
3.) You've cried about the unreliability of polls, surveys and studies in two different threads, and have done so in this thread for the past three days, yet now you've resorted to citing to one in order to make some irrelevant point. Hypocrisy yet again.
-
Kind of like a transposition of letters has you in a tizzy? Tit for tat, old man.
Keep your tits and your tats to yourself, buttercup. At least, I didn't blather about some off-topic subject with a know-it-all attitutude and chip on my shoulder... But, that's just your style. Whatever works for you...
Oh, and I wasn't aware that the Rasmussen Reports, Pew Research Center and Journalism.org were "wiki rants." At any rate, I would rather go into an informed know-it-all rant that utilizes some form of evidence than an...
Well actually, the concept of wiki means... Oh nevermind... I forgot that you're almighty and omnipotent.
... egotistical know-it-all rant based upon my own opinion and my comparisons of news stations to my own individual political stances.
My apologies... You're too young/inexperienced to have that discussion from personal experience. I should have done a better job identifying with you and sizing you up appropriately. You likely haven't observed much of what I've referenced, so it likely sounded "egotistical" as you say. My bad... Live through a few generations of downbreeding like affirmative action and political correctness, and we'll revisit this from a personal perspective. Of course by then, the blame-America-first lamestream media (aka. DNCTV) will likely be out of business, but I'm sure the Democrats will be funding a government-run news organization by then.
As far as the ratings, I could care less for three reasons:
Let me know when you have something intelligent to say without having to Google it.
-
Keep your tits and your tats to yourself, buttercup. At least, I didn't blather about some off-topic subject with a know-it-all attitutude and chip on my shoulder... But, that's just your style. Whatever works for you...
Well actually, the concept of wiki means... Oh nevermind... I forgot that you're almighty and omnipotent.
My apologies... You're too young/inexperienced to have that discussion from personal experience. I should have done a better job identifying with you and sizing you up appropriately. You likely haven't observed much of what I've referenced, so it likely sounded "egotistical" as you say. My bad... Live through a few generations of downbreeding like affirmative action and political correctness, and we'll revisit this from a personal perspective. Of course by then, the blame-America-first lamestream media (aka. DNCTV) will likely be out of business, but I'm sure the Democrats will be funding a government-run news organization by then.
Let me know when you have something intelligent to say without having to Google it.
I think I see the problem here.
VandyVol mistakenly thought this was to be a discussion that involved facts and reality.
Had he known it was supposed to a pissing contest in which each party accused the other of being ignorant because of the relatively minuscule age difference between them, or that verifiable facts with actual sited sources were something to be scoffed at, rather than "cause I said so and I'm old so I just know", perhaps he would have approached the conversation from a different angle.
-
I would rather go into an informed know-it-all rant that utilizes some form of evidence ....
You'd have to know something in order to perform this act. Judging by your completely biased, massively uninformed, agenda-driven arguments in this and other arenas, I'm convinced you know very little of the world as it truly works. You love to hear yourself talk and in doing so limit (essentially deny) the potential to actually learn something of real value.
Your rants are, therefore, not "informed" nor can they be characterized as "know it all." They are better framed as "misinformed" and "know-nothing."
Come back in 15 years and make the same arguments if you can. I can tell you right now with no equivocation that you won't. Not only will your perspective have changed, but you will be appalled at the positions you once took. Unless, that is, you simply don't have the capacity to learn from experience.
-
I think I see the problem here.
VandyVol mistakenly thought this was to be a discussion that involved facts and reality.
Had he known it was supposed to a pissing contest in which each party accused the other of being ignorant because of the relatively minuscule age difference between them, or that verifiable facts with actual sited sources were something to be scoffed at, rather...
Sorry sweatheart... The Democrats continually come up with study after study claiming that "most" Americans are under-insured and require another gubm'et entitlement program to wipe their cute little bungholes when they take a doody. They also tell me that global warming is real along with the Tooff Fairy and Santa Claus. Pardon me for being a skeptic and scoffing, when I'm supposed to be blindly believing everything they tell me behaving like a lemming incapable of individual thought. My bad...
... than "cause I said so and I'm old so I just know", perhaps he would have approached the conversation from a different angle.
Isn't that what I just said?
-
Pardon me for being a skeptic and scoffing, when I'm supposed to be blindly believing everything they tell me behaving like a lemming incapable of individual thought. My bad...
Individual thought = just making shit up and going with it.
Or as Stephen Colbert calls it, truthiness. You are the real-life version of the caricature that he is satirizing.
-
Now I has two massas tellin' me what I should and shouldn't believe! Oh noes!
So, let me get this straight bosses...an argument based upon the opinion of one person is not biased, yet an argument based upon statistics compiled by three separate organizations is biased.
I see the erruhs of muh ways bosses! I shall never stray again! Any time I wish to presents an informed argument, I is stayin' away from them informations and such. I just be statin' your individual opinion as proofs and that will be enoughs.
-
You are going to look back one day and wonder how you could have been so incredibly stupid.
-
Yessuh boss! Studies are stupid. We should dismisses all of thems as Democrat propaganda. I learns quick, massa!
-
Individual thought = just making poop up and going with it.
Sorry... I must be talking over your head too. My bad again...
You guys make sheep look like geniuses.
-
So, let me get this straight bosses...an argument based upon the opinion of one person is not biased, yet an argument based upon statistics compiled by three separate organizations is biased.
Statistics... That's good, boy. :rofl:
I can Google too... http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/media/voters_see_all_networks_with_bias (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/media/voters_see_all_networks_with_bias)
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664 (http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664)
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/pollak/33632 (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/pollak/33632)
http://www.mediaresearch.org/static/biasbasics/MediaBias101.aspx (http://www.mediaresearch.org/static/biasbasics/MediaBias101.aspx)
But, that only shows that I can play your game. We're not exchanging ideas or discussing anything. This bores me...
-
I'ma good little boy, so I won't be pointin' out the fact, massa, that you cited to a Rasmussen Report which, if you were to look at the entire report, is the same report to which I cited. In fact, your own link be statin' the people believe Fox be supportin' the Bush campaign. But I won't mention none of that, no massa...
Oh, and the UCLA reports? Well, that be referrin' to thems ideas of what your average voter be in relations to them vague ideologies of "conservatism" and "liberalism" that you hates. That report does not compare stations to bias based upon party affiliations...you know, them Republican or Democratic slants. But I won't be tellin' you nothin' about it being irrelevant, cause I just nods my head and go back to my room in the barn.
I also won't be tellin' you that you submitted a Media Research survey that was based solely on people's opinions and not on any verifiable data regardin' the number and types of stories and guests. I know you be extra mad with opinions unless they're your own, so we's gonna ignore that one boss.
And I be so glad that you pointed me to the liberal bias in CNN! That sho did clear up the whole thing about Fox. Since comin' under yo tutemuhlage, I understand the logic behind pointin' to CNN as having a Democratic slant (after I've already pointed that out via my second source) as a way to show that Fox News doesn't have a Republican Slant. Completely clear to me now that you been teachin' me and all. If it can be proven that CNN has a Democratic slant, then obviously Fox does not have a Republican slant. Makes complete sense to me!
-
You're not really that far removed from my 19 year old daughter. She thinks she knows everything and will one day come around to realizing she knows absolutely nothing.
It's okay. You can't help it.
-
Yessuh, boss! Me and your 19 year old daughter looks at them studies like we shouldn't. We's supposed to be lissnin' the Massa GarMan and his opinions. We reads them books, too, like we shouldn't. I read one that told me that thems World Wars occurred between 1914 and 1945. But I now sees that if I point to that book as a source and merely cite them informations found within, then I am just claiming to knows everuhthin'.
-
I'ma good little boy...
Nah... You're just a lemming. Even as I mocked you, you still found it necessary to review the links that I posted. Seriously? <Replay Subject Line Here> I have no interest in getting into a "pissing match" of who can Google the best for reference information and opinion polls. As I said, there isn't much to that. No exchange or sharing of ideas... No discussion... No brains... No perspectives... No value... No nothing... Again, that's boring to me.
-
Yessuh, massa! I forgot that sharing of ideas only occurs when you're sharing your individual opinions and everyone agrees with you. I had no idea that the posting of information wasn't sharing ideas. It's not as if information is a visual expression of an idea or anything. How silly of me to think that my points might be better reinforced if backed by cited data. No siree, don't show me how many Republican stories have been aired on Fox News in comparison to neutral or Democratic stories; I know deep down in my heart that Fox News has no Republican slant in the slightest, and that's all that matters. If I were writing an article or essay on the topic, then they'd just have to accept "Me" for every reference. I mean, that takes some brain, right? Declaring that Fox News does not have a Republican slant and passing this off as fact? Making conclusive statements without doing any research or relying on anyone else's research? Scoffing at the idea of any citation whatsoever, and denouncing every produced citation as biased, liberal garbage without one iota of evidence or explanation? I can see where it's not as boring; you have the opportunity to let your imagination run wild. Afterall, it's not being hindered by reality.
-
At least my daughter has sense enough to know when to shut up so she doesn't make a complete ass of herself. Maybe one day VV will learn that one, too.
-
At least my daughter has sense enough to know when to shut up so she doesn't make a complete ass of herself. Maybe one day VV will learn that one, too.
If so, that trait is obviously not genetic.
-
If so, that trait is obviously not genetic.
(http://knowyourmeme.com/system/icons/185/original/nickcage.jpeg)
-
VV, can you cease the "yessa massa"-speak? I was reading some of this but when I get to your post and it's written like that, I can't force myself to get through it. A, it's not a natural read, and B, it's kinda creepy in a loony-bin kind of way....like you're breaking off into some alternate personality or something.
He's saying you're young and that so far in life experience hasn't had much opportunity to shape how you look at certain things. What's wrong with that? Why does that force you to go into "yes master" mode? Just continue discussing...add some thought and insight to go along with the studies.
As for the studies, I get what he's saying. For example, those studies that were posted to determine which networks presented material in a "negative" or "positive" light. To me, that's a scientifically impossible thing to study or analyze, and certainly impossible to quantify objectively.
Take the phrase "equal outcome for everyone". That sounds "positive" and even compassionate to some people. They think it's great....how could you be against wanting to help everyone achieve and succeed? To others, "equal outcome for everyone" sounds like socialism and something America had nothing to do with as we rose from a handful of "colonies" to the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth. So to me, that phrase is not a good one. To someone else, it's sounds like a great humanitarian attitude. So who is right and who is wrong? Who is positive and who is negative? Well that's gonna depend on you. There is no scientific answer or way to "poll" that information.
I think what GarMan is trying to say, is that there are two ways to try to answer that question. One is to read what others are telling you (on MSNBC or Fox News, or Rush, or Chris Matthews), or what a study seems to "reveal". Another way is to live life long enough to be able to decipher what something really means. To live long enough to recognize something that's dressed up real nice and has positive words like "hope" and "change", but is really not what it claims.
He reference a good example...affirmative action. Let's make sure minorities have equal opportunity and help them get into positions and jobs they would otherwise not get. Sounds great, and the idea probably had some merit at one time. But having lived through it, GarMan can now tell you that it's crap. It's the same thing liberals want to push onto the nation in every regard these days. Give someone a position or job regardless of whether they are the best, most qualified person for the job. Give it to them to be "fair". Again, sounds nice and humanitarian-like. But if you lived through it, you know that all it did was give a lot of minorities a crutch to lean on, shifted responsibility of self-promotion from the individual "person" to the government, and kept a lot of deserving people out of jobs they were more qualified for.
Anyway, I'm just saying, have the humility and foresight to understand that your life experience will change your views and shape your opinion, and that at some point down the road, your opinion, which by then will be shaped by real life experience, will be far more valuable and less biased to you than any "study" you can google.
PS. I don't think that all studies are worthless as references....but it does make them more relevant when they aren't essentially just another person's observation shaped by their opinion (and opinion that is of no more value than your own).
-
VV, can you cease the "yessa massa"-speak? I was reading some of this but when I get to your post and it's written like that, I can't force myself to get through it. A, it's not a natural read, and B, it's kinda creepy in a loony-bin kind of way....like you're breaking off into some alternate personality or something.
He's saying you're young and that so far in life experience hasn't had much opportunity to shape how you look at certain things. What's wrong with that? Why does that force you to go into "yes master" mode? Just continue discussing...add some thought and insight to go along with the studies.
As for the studies, I get what he's saying. For example, those studies that were posted to determine which networks presented material in a "negative" or "positive" light. To me, that's a scientifically impossible thing to study or analyze, and certainly impossible to quantify objectively.
Take the phrase "equal outcome for everyone". That sounds "positive" and even compassionate to some people. They think it's great....how could you be against wanting to help everyone achieve and succeed? To others, "equal outcome for everyone" sounds like socialism and something America had nothing to do with as we rose from a handful of "colonies" to the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth. So to me, that phrase is not a good one. To someone else, it's sounds like a great humanitarian attitude. So who is right and who is wrong? Who is positive and who is negative? Well that's gonna depend on you. There is no scientific answer or way to "poll" that information.
I think what GarMan is trying to say, is that there are two ways to try to answer that question. One is to read what others are telling you (on MSNBC or Fox News, or Rush, or Chris Matthews), or what a study seems to "reveal". Another way is to live life long enough to be able to decipher what something really means. To live long enough to recognize something that's dressed up real nice and has positive words like "hope" and "change", but is really not what it claims.
He reference a good example...affirmative action. Let's make sure minorities have equal opportunity and help them get into positions and jobs they would otherwise not get. Sounds great, and the idea probably had some merit at one time. But having lived through it, GarMan can now tell you that it's crap. It's the same thing liberals want to push onto the nation in every regard these days. Give someone a position or job regardless of whether they are the best, most qualified person for the job. Give it to them to be "fair". Again, sounds nice and humanitarian-like. But if you lived through it, you know that all it did was give a lot of minorities a crutch to lean on, shifted responsibility of self-promotion from the individual "person" to the government, and kept a lot of deserving people out of jobs they were more qualified for.
Anyway, I'm just saying, have the humility and foresight to understand that your life experience will change your views and shape your opinion, and that at some point down the road, your opinion, which by then will be shaped by real life experience, will be far more valuable and less biased to you than any "study" you can google.
PS. I don't think that all studies are worthless as references....but it does make them more relevant when they aren't essentially just another person's observation shaped by their opinion (and opinion that is of no more value than your own).
At least you're dignifying this with an actual response instead of "You're an idiot, cause you're in your late 20's." You will get an intelligible response. I'm sure VV will speak to you with the dignity your response deserved. The other two will likely continue to get Toby.
However, I still disagree.
The emboldened exert is the only real tangible example you used, so that is what I will reference. How have we as 27 year olds not experienced Affirmative Action? I won't speak for him, but I know it to be a bullshit policy just as much as you do. I too see where it served its purpose at one point in time, but believe that time has passed. I have been through the college admissions process. I have been through the hiring process several times. I have been at two separate Fortune 500 companies since graduating college half a decade ago (had to throw that out there, since Kaos maintains I bag groceries and live in my mother's basement).
You can argue this to your 19 year old children, but excuse us for taking offense to the comparison. We are adults with adult jobs who associate with other adults with adult jobs, many older than yourselves.
I'll let VV speak to his own achievements, but I know that graduating law school and starting your own business are things you don't just stumble into with a completely naive ignorance.
-
He's saying you're young and that so far in life experience hasn't had much opportunity to shape how you look at certain things. What's wrong with that? Why does that force you to go into "yes master" mode? Just continue discussing...add some thought and insight to go along with the studies.
As far as me not being able to look at things a certain way because of my age, we're not talking about personal opinions that change over time. We're talking about verifiable facts. Does Fox News have a Republican slant in 2010? Being older is not going to grant you the ability to conjure that answer out of thin air. It's not an opinion that's shaped by age. It's a question that, if it is to be answered, requires some information or reasoning as to why Fox News does or does not have a Republican slant. Yelling from the mountaintops, "I'm a man! I'm 40! Fox News doesn't have a Republican slant!" doesn't cut it.
As for the studies, I get what he's saying. For example, those studies that were posted to determine which networks presented material in a "negative" or "positive" light. To me, that's a scientifically impossible thing to study or analyze, and certainly impossible to quantify objectively.
Actually, that was one portion of one of the studies. They also surveyed how many Republican viewers there are for each station. They also surveyed how many Republican guests were invited on each station. They also counted the number of points of view presented on each station. They also counted the number of times that journalists gave their own opinions. Let's also not forget the number of individuals from the Bush administration who suddenly got hired by Fox News. These aren't vague, subjective ideas that can't be quantified; they're identifiable events, persons and instances that can be quantified and compiled into statistics.
I think what GarMan is trying to say, is that there are two ways to try to answer that question. One is to read what others are telling you (on MSNBC or Fox News, or Rush, or Chris Matthews), or what a study seems to "reveal". Another way is to live life long enough to be able to decipher what something really means. To live long enough to recognize something that's dressed up real nice and has positive words like "hope" and "change", but is really not what it claims.
What I am trying to say is that he has declared that Fox has little or no Republican slant. He has done so without referencing to anything. Regardless of what his long life has revealed to him, he's given nothing (life experience or otherwise) in support of his statement. I'm not even talking about studies or surveys. He can swear up and down to never use them for all I care. He hasn't even given the first inkling as to why he believes Fox has no Republican slant. The closest he's come to giving a reason is by stating that he leans right himself, and thus Fox doesn't seem that right-leaning to him (paraphrasing, of course). Well, that's great and all, except that he had previously just went off on an entire rant about his hatred of "facts" being based on someone's personal opinion. Yet he wants to compare Fox's political slants to his own personal political beliefs? I guess we should get Nancy Pelosi in on this so that she can claim CNN leans right of her.
Anyway, I'm just saying, have the humility and foresight to understand that your life experience will change your views and shape your opinion, and that at some point down the road, your opinion, which by then will be shaped by real life experience, will be far more valuable and less biased to you than any "study" you can google.
Here's the thing: I'm not debating political views and opinions in this thread. I merely posted statistics that show that Fox News has a Republican slant. We're not talking about whether affirmative action is good or bad, or whether Republicans or Democrats are good or bad. We're talking about whether Fox News, through its journalists, stories and guests, displays a Republican slant. It's not a "good or bad" value judgment. I've never said that a Republican slant is a bad thing, nor have I ever subjectively commented on Fox News. The number of Republican guests that Fox News has is not a personal opinion about Fox; it's a quantifiable fact. The number of points of views that Fox News presents is not a personal opinion; it's a quantifiable fact. So on and so forth. While aging can and will affect your political views (something I've never argued with), it won't affect whether Fox does or doesn't have a Republican slant.
-
At least you're dignifying this with an actual response instead of "You're an idiot, cause you're in your late 20's." You will get an intelligible response. I'm sure VV will speak to you with the dignity your response deserved. The other two will likely continue to get Toby.
However, I still disagree.
The emboldened exert is the only real tangible example you used, so that is what I will reference. How have we as 27 year olds not experienced Affirmative Action? I won't speak for him, but I know it to be a bullpoop policy just as much as you do. I too see where it served its purpose at one point in time, but believe that time has passed. I have been through the college admissions process. I have been through the hiring process several times. I have been at two separate Fortune 500 companies since graduating college half a decade ago (had to throw that out there, since Kaos maintains I bag groceries and live in my mother's basement).
You can argue this to your 19 year old children, but excuse us for taking offense to the comparison. We are adults with adult jobs who associate with other adults with adult jobs, many older than yourselves.
I'll let VV speak to his own achievements, but I know that graduating law school and starting your own business are things you don't just stumble into with a completely naive ignorance.
You kind of help my point. You have experienced it. You know it to be a major fail. You and I were born into what was already known to be a flawed philosophy. But back when the idea was presented, who knows what you or I may have thought. We like the idea of equal rights, we like the idea of "fair", etc. So it may have sounded like a "good for you government...way to stand up for minorities, we proudly support this initiative" idea.
But I have a feeling that people that had lived life a bit longer, had experienced other failed government initiatives probably protested the idea from it's introduction. They didn't have to stand back and experience the fail of AA. They probably called it from the get-go, having wisdom gained from previous experience.
As for him saying VV is "an idiot because he's in his late 20's" is not really I think that whole thing went. I think it started out much different and got to that point because VV came across a little bit as having definitively conquered the discussion because of the studies and a "my study facts beat the hell out of your opinion" tone.
Then GarMan turned to the "you dumb ass kid" tone.
I'm not saying exactly who started their "tone" first, I'm just saying there is a reason he ended up at that point.
Consider this. There is a reason that almost all kids think their parents "just don't get it". It's because kids typically think they know everything. My parents pointed it out to me, their parents pointed it out to them, and I'll point it out to my kids. So consider that there is a chance that VV is coming across like this. There's a reason the phrase "he knows just enough to be dangerous" exists. It's for educated young men who haven't experienced enough in life to give that knowledge direction.
I've been down my share of
Country roads, boulevards, and interstates
I kinda know my way around
A little bout a lot of things
I know what the cards say
Sometimes the hard way
It looks so easy
My curiosity always gets me in a ditch
What really happens if
You turn that knob
Or flip that switch
Something I shouldn't do
Why you already knew
Thats all been taught to me
I know just enough to get in trouble
And thats just enough to understand
That the more I know
The more I'm sure
Someday it's gonna do me in
Yeah when my time comes
And I'm dead and gone
Let em put it on my tombstone
He knew just enough to get in trouble
But not enough to leave it alone
-
VV, I guess I'm referencing the links you did to a study that noted how many "positive" and "negative" things each station had to say about Obama, etc. For someone to watch a broadcast and state how many negative or positive things were just reported about Obama is not valid to me. That's the main one I had an issue with. I could watch the same broadcasts and have a completely different opinion of what had been negative or positive.
Anyway, I have work to do today, unfortunately (and fortunately I guess, since some people have no work at all), so I'm jumping out of this one for now....
Skip to 52 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKObOuiYVyM# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKObOuiYVyM#)
-
As for him saying VV is "an idiot because he's in his late 20's" is not really I think that whole thing went. I think it started out much different and got to that point because VV came across a little bit as having definitively conquered the discussion because of the studies and a "my study facts beat the hell out of your opinion" tone.
My initial post regarding the whole Fox News debate was simply three links, followed by text from the links. I didn't insert anything of my own, tone or otherwise, until later. In fact, I wasn't even the one who initially brought up studies. Someone else mentioned that studies did not show Fox to have a Republican slant, so I posted studies and their results for review.
Nonetheless, I still fail to see how statistics wouldn't "beat the hell out of" an opinion in this type of discussion. Again, we're not talking about affirmative action or any other political policy. We're not talking about "fair," "equal," "nice," or any other subjective opinions. We're talking about whether a news station has a Republican slant. We can quantify the number of Republican guests, the number of points of views, the number of Republican viewers, etc. When a station statistically has more Republican journalists, more opinions given by journalists, more Republican guests, more Republican viewers, and less points of view presented, then it's hard for me to agree with someone who says that Fox News doesn't have a Republican slant. Studies don't solve anything in the arena of opinionated debate, but when it comes to objective questions like this, studies can supply answers.
VV, I guess I'm referencing the links you did to a study that noted how many "positive" and "negative" things each station had to say about Obama, etc. For someone to watch a broadcast and state how many negative or positive things were just reported about Obama is not valid to me. That's the main one I had an issue with. I could watch the same broadcasts and have a completely different opinion of what had been negative or positive.
I can agree with that. The study focused only on stories that had a noticeably positive or negative tone; they classified the rest as neutral or left them uncoded. Nonetheless, I do agree that the concepts of positive and negative can be very subjective in nature. Of course, as mentioned above and in previous posts, there is still a multitude of support from the objective, quantifiable data in those studies.
-
Wow. I didn't realize you guys had almost, like, FIVE whole years of "real world" experience. That makes all the difference in the world. You are so, so seasoned. I'll have to reconsider all the asinine opinions I've seen expressed by you guys and filter them through your wizened lens.
Pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffftttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt..............
I've got shoelaces that have been working longer than you have.
Come back in 15 years when you've had kids and gone through a couple of economic cycles. Then we'll see what you have to say.
-
How silly...
Exactly!
I know deep down in my heart that Fox News has no Republican slant in the slightest, and that's all that matters.
I hate to point out the obvious at this stage, but I never really argued that...
-
That's an interesting way to look at your previous posts. I mean, all this time you've been adamantly attempting to make us believe that these particular studies are biased and/or are outright lies, and that Democrats typically use studies to swindle people into believing their liberal lies...yet you agree with the results of the studies which conclude that Fox News has a Republican slant? Seems like a waste of time to vehemently advocate that these studies are faulty, biased or untruthful when you ultimately agree with the results.
-
At least you're dignifying this with an actual response instead of "You're an idiot, cause you're in your late 20's." You will get an intelligible response. I'm sure VV will speak to you with the dignity your response deserved.
You have a point there. I assumed that he was intelligent enough to understand my perspective without me having to provide "an actual response" that illustrates what I've come to accept as common sense. Again, my bad...
I'll let VV speak to his own achievements, but I know that graduating law school and starting your own business are things you don't just stumble into with a completely naive ignorance.
I'm sure that he's an absolute genius in his own right. I understand that gay porn can be quite lucrative. Good for him!
-
I'll let VV speak to his own achievements, but I know that graduating law school and starting your own business are things you don't just stumble into with a completely naive ignorance.
I didn't really think about it before, but those things are not really related. You can be smart, a very hard worker, and dedicated, and still be naive and ignorant. Happens all the time. Look at half the people that go to UC-Berkley or somewhere like that.
For the record, I'm saying VV is entirely naive and or ignorant...no more than myself probably. I'm just pointing to the fact that achievement of almost any kind doesn't really preclude you from being either naive or ignorant. Again, I don't view VV in those lights, even if I disagree with some things. I'm sure I'm as much of each of those things in some regards as he is.
-
That's an interesting way to look at your previous posts. I mean, all this time you've been adamantly attempting to make us believe that these particular studies are biased and/or are outright lies, and that Democrats typically use studies to swindle people into believing their liberal lies...yet you agree with the results of the studies which conclude that Fox News has a Republican slant? Seems like a waste of time to vehemently advocate that these studies are faulty, biased or untruthful when you ultimately agree with the results.
Why must you always take this to ridiculous extremes? In your world, I have to either completely accept these "studies" or completely refute them. There's no middle ground with you. I've never suggested that they're "outright lies" as you put it, but the "studies" are still bullscat at best. Using opinions and surveys as "stats" for something that is subjective is extremely unreliable, especially when you cannot establish a mutually agreeable point of reference (aka "The Center"). Of course, you're going to argue that it's about Republicans versus Democrats, but today's Republican isn't anything like the Republican of yesterday. Bush-41 was a NeoCon... Bush-43 was essentially a RINO, if not a borderline Socialist with his prescription drug plan, "head start" program and bailout v.1. There is no frame of reference that is fixed unless you're willing to talk ideologies, but even there, you'll find a degree of evolution...
-
Extremes? I post three studies showing that Fox News has a Republican slant. You take it upon yourself to go on a warpath by railing on studies in general as being biased and, in many instances, fabricated by Democrats as a means to brainwash the public. It's not my fault that you went to the extreme of denouncing all studies only to later admit that you don't disagree with the studies cited.
Calling bullshit, by the way, is no different than calling it a lie. Afterall, what you're doing by calling bullshit is saying that the statement made is not true. Something that is not true = lie.
Using opinions and surveys as "stats" for something that is subjective is extremely unreliable, especially when you cannot establish a mutually agreeable point of reference (aka "The Center"). Of course, you're going to argue that it's about Republicans versus Democrats, but today's Republican isn't anything like the Republican of yesterday. Bush-41 was a NeoCon... Bush-43 was essentially a RINO, if not a borderline Socialist with his prescription drug plan, "head start" program and bailout v.1. There is no frame of reference that is fixed unless you're willing to talk ideologies, but even there, you'll find a degree of evolution...
I've already addressed this, but I'll do it again for old time's sake.
These polls were not taken in the 1800's. Additionally, no one from the 1800's was alive to take these polls. Thus, yesterday's concept of being a Republican is irrelevant. Furthermore, the polls did not base the subjects' political allegiances upon questions asking if they were liberal, conservative, libertarian, communist, socialist, etc. Nor did they try to classify people by asking what they think about X issue and then identifying them as having A, B or C political ideology. They asked them to identify themselves as Republican or Democrat. Regardless of what your "actual" political views classify you as in regard to the vast array of evolved political ideologies, most people identify themselves as "Democrat" or "Republican." In fact, we have this whole two party system in which people actually register to vote as a Republican or Democrat in primaries.
My point is that you can be a fucking way out in left field nut job liberal politician and be registered as a Republican, assuming the party accepts you. It doesn't matter what you subjectively consider to be your political ideology; you're objectively registered and identified as a Republican (not you, but rather a hypothetical politician or voter). Now, in all likelihood, you're not going to join a party or vote for a party if their views are completely different from yours. Regardless, there will be a variation from Republican to Republican in regard to political ideologies.
Despite all of this, my point still stands that you can quantify the number of self proposed Republican viewers. You can quantify the number of Republican politicians who appear as guests. You can quantify the number of points of view presented. You can quantify the number of journalists and editors who are self proposed Republicans. You can quantify the number of times a journalist gives his or her opinion during the course of stories. That is what the studies quantified, and those are not opinions. All of this is one effective way to determine whether a station has a Republican slant. This doesn't mean that the station is loyal to some vague, subjective notion of conservative ideologies from the 1800's or from today; it merely means that they have a particular slant toward the Republican party. The Republican party, despite how it may have changed or how many actual political ideologies are present within the party, is an identifiable entity, not a vague political ideology. Thus, it is completely within the realm of possibilities to objectively determine a station's slant toward a political party based upon the collected data mentioned above.
-
Good grief. I think I'd rather read greasy's drivel. At least he's reasonably concise.
-
Extremes? I post three studies showing that Fox News has a Republican slant. You take it upon yourself to go on a warpath by railing on studies in general as being biased and, in many instances, fabricated by Democrats as a means to brainwash the public. It's not my fault that you went to the extreme of denouncing all studies only to later admit that you don't disagree with the studies cited.
You take belligerence to a whole new level. In your world, I can only agree or disagree with these "studies". There's no room for me to challenge or disagree with the extent of the outcomes. There's no reasoning with you...
Calling bullpoop, by the way, is no different than calling it a lie. Afterall, what you're doing by calling bullpoop is saying that the statement made is not true. Something that is not true = lie.
Try exaggeration... embellishment... amplification... baloney... hyperbole... mischaracterization...
I've already addressed this, but I'll do it again for old time's sake.
Me too... :taunt:
-
(http://www.garryconn.com/images/bullshit2.jpg)
-
(http://i.imgur.com/2LOsK.jpg)
-
(http://i.imgur.com/2LOsK.jpg)
You're sick...
-
(http://i.imgur.com/2LOsK.jpg)
Coincidence ?
-
Coincidence ?
I think not. The Mayans knew about Sarah Palin's idiocy long before we were duped by her hotness.
-
http://www.hulu.com/embed/RfCxnLGqJ0SwktGymtkdgA (http://www.hulu.com/embed/RfCxnLGqJ0SwktGymtkdgA)
We are fucked...
-
Chad, VV -
Been out of this one a while. Actually busy with the business traveling the last 2 weeks. Anyway...my points were just THIS:
1. Never said Foxnews wasnt biased some to the right. I just said they are doing nothing worse than the others have been doing for the last 50 years. Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, Tom Brokenjaw, Katie Couric, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Peter Jennings (RIP), Bryant Gumbel, and you could go on with liberal on air personalities. Foxnews - I can honestly peg a handful as hard right, registered GOPs - Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, Megyn Kelly, Shepherd Smith, Brit Hume. Don't even say Karl Rove - he is a contributor. Dick Morris (former Clintonite) is also a contributor. JAD tried to make an idiot from another board we used to be on understand what a "contributor" was. Foxnews also has regulars from the left side as well - Geraldo Rivera, Greta Van Susteren (yes, she is a liberal), Juan Williams, Bob Beckel, Mark Lamont Hill......Besides Lou Dobbs, who did CNN ever have not on the left? All Im saying is at best, they are a wash. I know Foxnews leans right. The other 4-5 lean left. Done. No crime on Foxnews' part.
2. I agree with JAD on the experiencing life part. VV - my views were much like yours at that age. I am mid 30's now and I can't believe how much my perception in life changed from 22 to 34. At 22, 25, 27 - whatever - everything looks good in a theory, or on paper. Not saying you have or havent actually been hit in the face with things - but the likelihood of it is less. That is the very reason many of my views changed. I saw how policy affected me. I saw how economics affected me and mostly how elected officials affected my wallet. And unfortunately in our society, thats what it takes most of the time - to actually get hit in the wallet and live paycheck to paycheck for several years by no fault of your own to sometimes "wake up".
3. I will never defend GWB so dont even bring him into an argument. I cant stand him and NO - I dont miss him. I just dislike Obama more. So shove it up your ass AWK. And good job trying to be a mind reader. I dislike Obama because I THINK he's a commie who is taking the country down the toliet. I thought the same of GWB.
-
3. I will never defend GWB so dont even bring him into an argument. I cant stand him and NO - I dont miss him. I just dislike Obama more. So shove it up your ass AWK. And good job trying to be a mind reader. I dislike Obama because I THINK he's a commie who is taking the country down the toliet. I thought the same of GWB.
Now come on... GWB wasn't "a commie". He was just America's First Socialist President. On the other hand, Barry is an outright Stalinist. We're PHUCKED if we don't get off our asses.
-
Chad, VV -
Been out of this one a while. Actually busy with the business traveling the last 2 weeks. Anyway...my points were just THIS:
1. Never said Foxnews wasnt biased some to the right. I just said they are doing nothing worse than the others have been doing for the last 50 years. Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, Tom Brokenjaw, Katie Couric, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Peter Jennings (RIP), Bryant Gumbel, and you could go on with liberal on air personalities. Foxnews - I can honestly peg a handful as hard right, registered GOPs - Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, Megyn Kelly, Shepherd Smith, Brit Hume. Don't even say Karl Rove - he is a contributor. Dick Morris (former Clintonite) is also a contributor. JAD tried to make an idiot from another board we used to be on understand what a "contributor" was. Foxnews also has regulars from the left side as well - Geraldo Rivera, Greta Van Susteren (yes, she is a liberal), Juan Williams, Bob Beckel, Mark Lamont Hill......Besides Lou Dobbs, who did CNN ever have not on the left? All Im saying is at best, they are a wash. I know Foxnews leans right. The other 4-5 lean left. Done. No crime on Foxnews' part.
2. I agree with JAD on the experiencing life part. VV - my views were much like yours at that age. I am mid 30's now and I can't believe how much my perception in life changed from 22 to 34. At 22, 25, 27 - whatever - everything looks good in a theory, or on paper. Not saying you have or havent actually been hit in the face with things - but the likelihood of it is less. That is the very reason many of my views changed. I saw how policy affected me. I saw how economics affected me and mostly how elected officials affected my wallet. And unfortunately in our society, thats what it takes most of the time - to actually get hit in the wallet and live paycheck to paycheck for several years by no fault of your own to sometimes "wake up".
3. I will never defend GWB so dont even bring him into an argument. I cant stand him and NO - I dont miss him. I just dislike Obama more. So shove it up your ass AWK. And good job trying to be a mind reader. I dislike Obama because I THINK he's a commie who is taking the country down the toliet. I thought the same of GWB.
I can think of more fruitful things to shove up my ass than the truth.
-
Chad, VV -
Been out of this one a while. Actually busy with the business traveling the last 2 weeks. Anyway...my points were just THIS:
1. Never said Foxnews wasnt biased some to the right. I just said they are doing nothing worse than the others have been doing for the last 50 years. Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, Tom Brokenjaw, Katie Couric, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Peter Jennings (RIP), Bryant Gumbel, and you could go on with liberal on air personalities. Foxnews - I can honestly peg a handful as hard right, registered GOPs - Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, Megyn Kelly, Shepherd Smith, Brit Hume. Don't even say Karl Rove - he is a contributor. Dick Morris (former Clintonite) is also a contributor. JAD tried to make an idiot from another board we used to be on understand what a "contributor" was. Foxnews also has regulars from the left side as well - Geraldo Rivera, Greta Van Susteren (yes, she is a liberal), Juan Williams, Bob Beckel, Mark Lamont Hill......Besides Lou Dobbs, who did CNN ever have not on the left? All Im saying is at best, they are a wash. I know Foxnews leans right. The other 4-5 lean left. Done. No crime on Foxnews' part.
2. I agree with JAD on the experiencing life part. VV - my views were much like yours at that age. I am mid 30's now and I can't believe how much my perception in life changed from 22 to 34. At 22, 25, 27 - whatever - everything looks good in a theory, or on paper. Not saying you have or havent actually been hit in the face with things - but the likelihood of it is less. That is the very reason many of my views changed. I saw how policy affected me. I saw how economics affected me and mostly how elected officials affected my wallet. And unfortunately in our society, thats what it takes most of the time - to actually get hit in the wallet and live paycheck to paycheck for several years by no fault of your own to sometimes "wake up".
3. I will never defend GWB so dont even bring him into an argument. I cant stand him and NO - I dont miss him. I just dislike Obama more. So shove it up your ass AWK. And good job trying to be a mind reader. I dislike Obama because I THINK he's a commie who is taking the country down the toliet. I thought the same of GWB.
The study shows that Fox has more of a Republican slant than other stations have a Democratic slant. It's not a huge difference, but it is noticeable. Based upon those studies, saying that Fox doesn't have any more of a slant is incorrect. Additionally, while other stations have Democratic/liberal personalities, the study also shows that Fox journalists tended to give their personal opinions more often than journalists at other stations.
I understand and agree about the life experience bit. However, my point was that this debate involves something that can be proven objectively. A 70 year old is not in a better position to tell you how many people watched the last season of Lost simply because of his age. He's going to have to resort to pointing out hard facts if he wants to procure an answer for that. To me, the political slant of a news station is objectively verifiable. You can look to the number of Republicans that watch, the number of Republican journalists and editors, the number of times personal opinions are inserted by journalists, etc. Life experience doesn't automatically give you those answers.
-
The study shows that Fox has more of a Republican slant than other stations have a Democratic slant. It's not a huge difference, but it is noticeable. Based upon those studies, saying that Fox doesn't have any more of a slant is incorrect. Additionally, while other stations have Democratic/liberal personalities, the study also shows that Fox journalists tended to give their personal opinions more often than journalists at other stations.
I understand and agree about the life experience bit. However, my point was that this debate involves something that can be proven objectively. A 70 year old is not in a better position to tell you how many people watched the last season of Lost simply because of his age. He's going to have to resort to pointing out hard facts if he wants to procure an answer for that. To me, the political slant of a news station is objectively verifiable. You can look to the number of Republicans that watch, the number of Republican journalists and editors, the number of times personal opinions are inserted by journalists, etc. Life experience doesn't automatically give you those answers.
Anything you said after this is wasted. "The study" can be tweaked to show anything one wants it to. "The study" will reflect the biases of whoever is doing "the study."
To suggest that anyone at Fox or any other news station is as biased or slanted as Keith Olbermann or the lesbian hag on MSNBC or Joy "Bitch" Behar on CNN is patently absurd.
Your head is permanently affixed to the inner walls of your ass no matter how many words you use to explain otherwise.
-
The study shows that Fox has more of a Republican slant than other stations have a Democratic slant.
Really? republican slant or CONSERVATIVE slant? Many independents are conservative. The others have a more LIBRUL slant. Not many independents are librul. And that is what rubs the left the wrong way. They can't even keep ONE left wing radio station going so they try to attack the one major TV station that is most conservative. But to say Fox is extreme is just librul drivel.
-
Really? republican slant or CONSERVATIVE slant? Many independents are conservative. The others have a more LIBRUL slant. Not many independents are librul. And that is what rubs the left the wrong way. They can't even keep ONE left wing radio station going so they try to attack the one major TV station that is most conservative. But to say Fox is extreme is just librul drivel.
Be careful there... I've already brought all of this up, but these so-called "studies" are the final word and cannot be challenged or even questioned in this thread.
-
Anything you said after this is wasted. "The study" can be tweaked to show anything one wants it to. "The study" will reflect the biases of whoever is doing "the study."
There was more than one study cited, and I have yet to hear anyone give a valid reason as to why the study or the researchers involved in the study were biased. As of right now, you seem to be rejecting the study simply because it doesn't reflect your personal views; that doesn't make it tweaked.
To suggest that anyone at Fox or any other news station is as biased or slanted as Keith Olbermann or the lesbian hag on MSNBC or Joy "Bitch" Behar on CNN is patently absurd.
I never said that individual journalists/hosts were more or less slanted. The studies deal with the news networks as a whole.
-
Really? republican slant or CONSERVATIVE slant? Many independents are conservative. The others have a more LIBRUL slant. Not many independents are librul. And that is what rubs the left the wrong way. They can't even keep ONE left wing radio station going so they try to attack the one major TV station that is most conservative. But to say Fox is extreme is just librul drivel.
You could have answered your own question if you would have either read the studies or my posts relating to the studies. They quantify the number of Republican viewers, journalists, guests, etc., as well as other statistics, such as how many times journalists insert their personal opinions on stories. And nothing said that it was "extreme;" it just showed that there was more of a Republican slant at Fox News than any slant at other stations.
-
There was more than one study cited, and I have yet to hear anyone give a valid reason as to why the study or the researchers involved in the study were biased. As of right now, you seem to be rejecting the study simply because it doesn't reflect your personal views; that doesn't make it tweaked.
I never said that individual journalists/hosts were more or less slanted. The studies deal with the news networks as a whole.
People who know nothing about what they discuss rely on "studies."
"Studies" are useless regardless of which position they claim to support. "Studies" are garbage.
-
People who know nothing about what they discuss rely on "studies."
"Studies" are useless regardless of which position they claim to support. "Studies" are garbage.
So if I were to ask you how many people watched Lost last season, you would rather pull a number out of your ass than refer to a study on the topic?
-
So if I were to ask you how many people watched Lost last season, you would rather pull a number out of your ass than refer to a study on the topic?
Your definition of "study" is bizarre.
A ratings system is not a "study."
-
Your definition of "study" is bizarre.
A ratings system is not a "study."
Doing a study which polls how many Republicans watch Fox News is not any different than a ratings system which polls how many people watch Lost. If one is considered a study, so is the other.
-
Doing a study which polls how many Republicans watch Fox News is not any different than a ratings system which polls how many people watch Lost. If one is considered a study, so is the other.
Are you being purposely dim?
No, one "study" is not as good as another. It depends on the conditions under which the study was conducted, the historical accuracy of the firm conducting the study, the parameters of the study itself.
The Nielsen ratings utilize a combination of electronic monitoring devices and paper surveys to determine a representative quantity of viewers for a particular television show. The ratings system is not designed, nor does it intend, to determine the value or position of the shows. It is a tabulation system more than a survey and as such is not nearly as likely to be influenced by the personal bias of the person(s) managing the system. The Nielsen ratings also have a long track record of relative accuracy.
The moment you introduce personal bias into the equation, you have a completely different animal. It's ignorant to pretend otherwise. If an interviewer asks you "Do you watch Psych on USA?" Your answer is a simple yes or no. It's not subject to any other factors. If an interviewer asks you to identify your political preference, any answer you give thereafter will be treated differently.
A poll that tells me how many people watch Fox News has the chance to be objectively measured. One which purports to tell me how many Republicans watch the same channel is hopelessly flawed.
I can tell you how many people attend a game at Jordan Hare Stadium on Saturday. Identifying how many attend because they like the color orange, because they enjoy watching the eagle fly, because they are fans of the opposing team, etc -- all subjective and impossible to accurately quantify.
-
No, one "study" is not as good as another. It depends on the conditions under which the study was conducted, the historical accuracy of the firm conducting the study, the parameters of the study itself.
My statement was not that one study was as good as another. My statement was that if counting the number of Republican viewers is a study in your eyes, then counting the number of viewers of Lost is also a study.
The moment you introduce personal bias into the equation, you have a completely different animal. It's ignorant to pretend otherwise. If an interviewer asks you "Do you watch Psych on USA?" Your answer is a simple yes or no. It's not subject to any other factors. If an interviewer asks you to identify your political preference, any answer you give thereafter will be treated differently.
You're assuming that they have treated your answers differently. If they ask you if you are a Republican or a Democrat, then you give an answer. If they ask you what television show you watch, then you give an answer. The ask and answer process is not different simply because we're dealing with politics. You've assumed that this study is tweaked simply because it deals with politics, yet the questions they ask have very clear and quantifiable answers.
-
My statement was not that one study was as good as another. My statement was that if counting the number of Republican viewers is a study in your eyes, then counting the number of viewers of Lost is also a study.
Damn lawyers.
All studies are not created equal. Your example of counting the number of viewers on Lost as being a study bears no resemblance whatsoever to a study that divines political affiliation. One is a tabulation, the other a survey.
The objectives are entirely different.
This is like saying "well, since grizzly bears and kittens are both animals, then I should be able to cuddle with a grizzly. It is, after all an animal."
You're assuming that they have treated your answers differently. If they ask you if you are a Republican or a Democrat, then you give an answer. If they ask you what television show you watch, then you give an answer. The ask and answer process is not different simply because we're dealing with politics. You've assumed that this study is tweaked simply because it deals with politics, yet the questions they ask have very clear and quantifiable answers.
You don't know how the questions were framed. The fact that there is the potential for bias renders one study less valid than the other.
As before, the objectives are clearly different.
One seeks to quantify.
One seeks to qualify.
Pretend otherwise if you will, but your position is patently absurd here.
-
All studies are not created equal. Your example of counting the number of viewers on Lost as being a study bears no resemblance whatsoever to a study that divines political affiliation. One is a tabulation, the other a survey.
There is no divination of responses. The question is asked, people respond, and tabulations are made. Unless you're suggesting that people are too stupid to give a response that identifies them as a Democrat or Republican, I'm not sure how the question would be faulty.
You don't know how the questions were framed. The fact that there is the potential for bias renders one study less valid than the other.
Neither do you, so you're simply assuming that they are biased. Nonetheless, the questions from all of their polls are included on their website.
Regardless, I'm a little perplexed that so many people are outraged at the alleged bias/absurdity of these studies when they agree that Fox News has a Republican slant. The initial purpose of posting these studies was to refute someone's statement that Fox had no slant, yet this has somehow evolved into people believing that the assertion made was that Fox has an extreme slant; no such claim was ever made.
-
Defining a network to be X amount Conservative is very qualitative and intangible - more of something you have to see and judge. Very subjective and opinion based - like most "studies" are - its just someone's opinion. As it is here.
Counting the number of viewers who watched Lost or American "Crap" Idol is purely quantitative and can be finitely measured in numbers. It is not subjective. There is a right answer in the form of a fact (ie - a number) and is not an opinion.
This is where they are different. Sorry VV, but your logic was flawed here in your comparison.
-
There is no divination of responses. The question is asked, people respond, and tabulations are made. Unless you're suggesting that people are too stupid to give a response that identifies them as a Democrat or Republican, I'm not sure how the question would be faulty.
Neither do you, so you're simply assuming that they are biased. Nonetheless, the questions from all of their polls are included on their website.
Regardless, I'm a little perplexed that so many people are outraged at the alleged bias/absurdity of these studies when they agree that Fox News has a Republican slant. The initial purpose of posting these studies was to refute someone's statement that Fox had no slant, yet this has somehow evolved into people believing that the assertion made was that Fox has an extreme slant; no such claim was ever made.
Fox News is extremely biased. Much moreso than any of the other outlets you mentioned lean to the left.
-
:pwnd:
-
OH NO! HE OWNED ME! ...by quoting someone else:
Fox News is extremely biased. Much moreso than any of the other outlets you mentioned lean to the left.
I haven't stated that Fox has an "extreme" bias, yet multiple people continue to argue with me as if I had made the statement. As I stated, the initial purpose of me introducing the studies was to show that Fox News did have a slant, because the statement was made that Fox News had no slant.
-
Defining a network to be X amount Conservative is very qualitative and intangible - more of something you have to see and judge. Very subjective and opinion based - like most "studies" are - its just someone's opinion. As it is here.
Counting the number of viewers who watched Lost or American "Crap" Idol is purely quantitative and can be finitely measured in numbers. It is not subjective. There is a right answer in the form of a fact (ie - a number) and is not an opinion.
This is where they are different. Sorry VV, but your logic was flawed here in your comparison.
You can count the number of people who say that they are Republican. You can count the number of journalists who are registered Republican or who have stated they are Republican. You can count the number of times that a journalist gives a personal opinion on a story. Your logic is flawed in assuming that these things can't be quantified. It is not an opinion as to how many people who said they were Republicans also said they watch Fox News. It is not an opinion as to how many editors, writers, etc. came from administrations of Republican presidents, especially from the Bush administration. It's not an opinion as to how many of the officers, board members, etc. of Fox are publicly self proposed Republicans. These can all be quantified.
-
You can count the number of people who say that they are Republican. You can count the number of journalists who are registered Republican or who have stated they are Republican. You can count the number of times that a journalist gives a personal opinion on a story. Your logic is flawed in assuming that these things can't be quantified. It is not an opinion as to how many people who said they were Republicans also said they watch Fox News. It is not an opinion as to how many editors, writers, etc. came from administrations of Republican presidents, especially from the Bush administration. It's not an opinion as to how many of the officers, board members, etc. of Fox are publicly self proposed Republicans. These can all be quantified.
The OWNED was simply a joke man. Lighten up Francis.
And how many people who watch Fox, work for Fox or who are ON Fox who say they are GOP doesn't define "how conservative" Fox reports the news. It doesn't determine the slant. The content, the writing and the attitude determines that. Thats a very subjective thing. Take Finebaum for instance. Tennessee Alum, has Barners on his show, has Barners call into his show....but anyone in their right mind knows that show isn't right down the middle. Its subjective. The kid in you still thinks everything is tangible and its not.
And I really really want you to engage Kaos in a debate on content and writing...please.....I want to see this....
-
And how many people who watch Fox, work for Fox or who are ON Fox who say they are GOP doesn't define "how conservative" Fox reports the news. It doesn't determine the slant. The content, the writing and the attitude determines that. Thats a very subjective thing. Take Finebaum for instance. Tennessee Alum, has Barners on his show, has Barners call into his show....but anyone in their right mind knows that show isn't right down the middle. Its subjective.
Something that is subjective takes place in a person's mind and is modified by the person's bias or perspective. The identification of the taste of ice cream as good or bad is subjective. The judgment of a piece of art is subjective. Finebaum's statements that he is an Alabama fan are not subjective. Sure, the reasons for his affinity of the team are subjective beliefs, but identifying him as an Alabama fan based upon his statements is not subjective.
Similarly, the fact that a journalist has publicly acknowledged being Republican is objective. Why he is a Republican may not be objective, but the study did not deal with people's subjective beliefs as to why they were Republicans; it merely counted the number of people who identified themselves as Republican. Additionally, you can objectively quantify how many times journalists insert their own opinions. When you have a Republican journalist making opinions, and when the majority of viewers are Republican, it's fairly obvious that there is a Republican slant. Unless, of course, you're suggesting that Republicans have chosen to watch a news station that has no slant, and only Democrats are guilty of watching news stations with Democratic slants.
The kid in you still thinks everything is tangible and its not.
The fact that I name off quantifiable things from one study does not mean that I think everything is tangible.
And I really really want you to engage Kaos in a debate on content and writing...please.....I want to see this....
Given the fact that we are discussing the value of studies, and in particular three specific studies to which I cited, I'm not sure that such a discussion would be relevant. Regardless, I'm not sure why you want so badly to see this.
-
OH NO! HE OWNED ME! ...by quoting someone else:
I haven't stated that Fox has an "extreme" bias, yet multiple people continue to argue with me as if I had made the statement. As I stated, the initial purpose of me introducing the studies was to show that Fox News did have a slant, because the statement was made that Fox News had no slant.
No intent to own or anything else, just pointing out that it was said. I could be wrong, but I think that comment is what people took offense to.
-
Something that is subjective takes place in a person's mind and is modified by the person's bias or perspective. The identification of the taste of ice cream as good or bad is subjective. The judgment of a piece of art is subjective. Finebaum's statements that he is an Alabama fan are not subjective. Sure, the reasons for his affinity of the team are subjective beliefs, but identifying him as an Alabama fan based upon his statements is not subjective.
Similarly, the fact that a journalist has publicly acknowledged being Republican is objective. Why he is a Republican may not be objective, but the study did not deal with people's subjective beliefs as to why they were Republicans; it merely counted the number of people who identified themselves as Republican. Additionally, you can objectively quantify how many times journalists insert their own opinions. When you have a Republican journalist making opinions, and when the majority of viewers are Republican, it's fairly obvious that there is a Republican slant. Unless, of course, you're suggesting that Republicans have chosen to watch a news station that has no slant, and only Democrats are guilty of watching news stations with Democratic slants.
The fact that I name off quantifiable things from one study does not mean that I think everything is tangible.
Given the fact that we are discussing the value of studies, and in particular three specific studies to which I cited, I'm not sure that such a discussion would be relevant. Regardless, I'm not sure why you want so badly to see this.
Your beyond help man. Your indoctrination runs deep and your constant drivel gets old. Notice who the common denominator is in these debates. Have fun arguing with yourself in this one from here on out.
-
Your beyond help man. Your indoctrination runs deep and your constant drivel gets old. Notice who the common denominator is in these debates. Have fun arguing with yourself in this one from here on out.
Dude exemplifies the hubris and ignorance of youth.
A perfect example of why there are age limits for most political office. Sad fact is that many don't mature much beyond the crackpot perspective VV displays.
-
Dude exemplifies the hubris and ignorance of youth.
A perfect example of why there are age limits for most political office. Sad fact is that many don't mature much beyond the crackpot perspective VV displays.
Iron-E.
Different view/perspective = ignorance.
Remind me again why the conservatives lost the White House and Congress last election?
-
Iron-E.
Different view/perspective = ignorance.
Remind me again why the conservatives lost the White House and Congress last election?
I don't think the conservatives did, the RHINO's that claim to be republicans, yes they lost.
-
Iron-E.
Different view/perspective = ignorance.
Remind me again why the conservatives lost the White House and Congress last election?
Wrong. Ignorance = ignorance. VV doesn't have the capacity to recognize (due to his youth) that he doesn't have the experience or knowledge to understand half what he's talking about.
They lost the election because of IDIOTS like the one referenced here who fail at comprehending the bigger picture and cling to unrealistic notions. The best man didn't win, it was more of a dumbass American Idol competition. Thanks to the ignorance and hubris of youth.
Appreciate you making my point for me. We're in the current runaway socialist situation precisely because of people like VV who lack critical thinking skills and don't know it.
-
Wrong. Ignorance = ignorance. VV doesn't have the capacity to recognize (due to his youth) that he doesn't have the experience or knowledge to understand half what he's talking about.
They lost the election because of IDIOTS like the one referenced here who fail at comprehending the bigger picture and cling to unrealistic notions. The best man didn't win, it was more of a dumbass American Idol competition. Thanks to the ignorance and hubris of youth.
Appreciate you making my point for me. We're in the current runaway socialist situation precisely because of people like VV who lack critical thinking skills and don't know it.
Vandy Vol is throwing facts at you, and you return with an opinion that he can't see the big picture. Then you group all people of a certain age into a group based solely on your opinion. I don't really think you have a point, at least not one that can be argued and won objectively.
-
Vandy Vol is throwing facts at you, and you return with an opinion that he can't see the big picture. Then you group all people of a certain age into a group based solely on your opinion. I don't really think you have a point, at least not one that can be argued and won objectively.
VV lost a loooong time ago. Perhaps you should peruse the entirety of the thread before making a judgement based on the last two posts when his blatant obtuseness has reached critical mass and it's become obvious that he wears blinders, a blindfold and sunglasses.
Your definition of tthe term "facts" needs serious work as well.
-
I don't really think you have a point, at least not one that can be argued and won objectively.
In other news, the sky is blue.
-
I don't think the conservatives did, the RHINO's that claim to be republicans, yes they lost.
Exactly - since when is John McCain a conservative? How's that for data reconfiguration?
-
Exactly - since when is John McCain a conservative? How's that for data reconfiguration?
I have never know McCain to be conservative about a thing. Just as I have never know Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins to be conservative on any issue, but b/c they have that R beside their name they will be lumped in when people talk about conservatives. The conservative part of the Republican Party has been hijacked by a bunch of RHINO's that spent money like Democrats since 2000.
If you notice the downfall of the party (and the country IMO) was when Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott were ousted out of power by either their own party or Democrat witch hunts. It hasn't been the same since.
-
The conservative part of the Republican Party has been hijacked by a bunch of RHINO's that spent money like Democrats since 2000.
If you notice the downfall of the party (and the country IMO) was when Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott were ousted out of power by either their own party or Democrat witch hunts. It hasn't been the same since.
THIS....
See - this is how they use the "GOPs did it too" argument. Bush started TARP. Bush increased spending. McCain stood for this, McCain stood for that - GOP's lost the election, shows you how backwards they are. Bush and McCain are not true GOPs. As AUTiger1 said either RINOs or NEOCONS. The last time we had a true GOP running (Reagan) he wiped the floor with the opponents and did considerable good for the country whether you liked his spending policies or not.
-
VV lost a loooong time ago. Perhaps you should peruse the entirety of the thread before making a judgement based on the last two posts when his blatant obtuseness has reached critical mass and it's become obvious that he wears blinders, a blindfold and sunglasses.
Your definition of tthe term "facts" needs serious work as well.
Yes. I "lost" because I pointed to facts, meanwhile your stance merely relies upon your age, which has somehow granted you the supernatural ability to definitively declare a news station's slant or lack thereof.
Completely reasonable.
-
Yes. I "lost" because I pointed to facts, meanwhile your stance merely relies upon your age, which has somehow granted you the supernatural ability to definitively declare a news station's slant or lack thereof.
Completely reasonable.
Facts? :rofl:
Facts? :rofl: :rofl:
Facts??? :rofl:
You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass and then sent you a card of apology.
Amazing how you distilled this entire discussion into which news organization is more slanted -- based on your precious (and utterly fucking useless) "studies."
Facts?
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA....