quote:Originally posted by Parkour: I did. It points out that both nbc news and msnbc commentors have to get permission from the same person. This person then makes a comment on the impartiality of nbc news. There is no included claim on the part of msnbc being impartial.
now YOU can read it again and check it against my translation and see that I am right.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
SO according to you, there is no policy at all for MSNBC. That it is part of NBC News and the president is for both and that an employee was just suspended for not following the exact policy you claim doesn't apply to him is irrelevant.
posted
If you only vote for members of your own race because they are members of your own race, then that is racist. Blacks are not exempt from the same standard. But as I have pointed out, it is also racist for whites to vote for Obama because he is black, so they can prove they are "not racist." Voting for anyone where their race is a factor in the choice, is by definition racist.
Samprimary, Bill O'Reilly does not call people "Hitler." He calls people whom he views as extraordinarily thick-headed "pinheads," in his "Pinheads vs. Patriots" segments. It is liberals who are notorious for calling conservatives "Hitler."
Fox News presents both conservative and liberal viewpoints, which is the closest any news organization can come to being unbiased. MSNBC and all the others only present the liberal viewpoint in both opinion and "news." Then wonder why the vast majority of viewers flock to Fox, so they can get a more complete reporting of the news.
You can only deride Sarah Palin for saying she can see Russia from her kitchen window (when actually it was Tina Fey who said it on Saturday Night Live) so many times, before people in general tune you out as hopelessly biased, not even willing to check your facts.
I would say as a general rule of thumb, that anyone who claims Fox News is "biased" is merely demonstrating that they are biased liberals, so intolerant of other viewpoints that they are unable even to be fair-minded, so that to them, any expression or reportage of non-liberal viewpoints must be "biased."
[ November 06, 2010, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would say as a general rule of thumb, that anyone who claims Fox News is "biased" is merely demonstrating that they are biased liberals.
Funny. I'd say the opposite: that anyone claiming that Fox isn't biased must, QED, be extremely biased. The difference between our two claims is that I'm right. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: I did. It points out that both nbc news and msnbc commentors have to get permission from the same person. This person then makes a comment on the impartiality of nbc news. There is no included claim on the part of msnbc being impartial.
now YOU can read it again and check it against my translation and see that I am right.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
SO according to you, there is no policy at all for MSNBC.
Gosh, he's actually not saying that at all!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: I did. It points out that both nbc news and msnbc commentors have to get permission from the same person. This person then makes a comment on the impartiality of nbc news. There is no included claim on the part of msnbc being impartial.
now YOU can read it again and check it against my translation and see that I am right.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
SO according to you, there is no policy at all for MSNBC. That it is part of NBC News and the president is for both and that an employee was just suspended for not following the exact policy you claim doesn't apply to him is irrelevant.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I should take my own advice regarding you and know that correcting you or even just arguing wth you makes you rude and mean every time and you can't be corrected.
But I could keep trying anyway.
I didn't say that msnbc has no policy.
Can you read my posts again and admit that?
Or are you just going to keep HAHAHAHAHAHAHAing like it makes you less wrong?
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, it doesn't matter how many times you and malanthop say it. People voted for Obama for other reasons besides race. If the Democratic Party had run a pumpkin against McCain people would have voted for it, especially after McCain's running mate was announced.
Did a lot of people vote for Obama to see a black man in the office? I'm sure of it. But I'll bet not many of them would have voted for Michael Steele had he been the Republican nominee, and I'll bet had Jesse Jackson been in the primary instead of Obama you'd be complaining about all the women who voted for President Hillary Clinton right now.
Obama stepped forward as an intelligent man who wanted to return balance to the government, restore reason and science over blind ideology, and actually try to govern instead of endlessly campaigning.
It is liberals who are notorious for calling conservatives "Hitler."
No, no, you don't get to claim that either. While I am annoyed at how often this gets overused by dimwitted liberals, the right has nearly trademarked this technique. Overtly, in lots of instances of commentators and Tea Party signs, and covertly by referring to all of Obama's policies as socialist (even the ones based on existing Republican policies).
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Well TBF I think uninformed/passively informed reasonable people were at least found Palin an interesting choice based on the initial talkings points as an "anti establishment anti big gov't" kind of person... Then came the news about her corruption, hypocrisy, her unpaleatable stances on key issues like women's rights, her gaffes and blind show of incompetence, her hissy fits, nasty attack adds and efforts to one up McCain and steal the spotlight, etc etc.
THEN she became toxic to the ticket for republicans.
I think had she showed a shred of decency and humility it could have been possible to recover from that but never once as far as I could tell did she ever think "oops".
IP: Logged |
posted
Adolph Hitler was a fascist. He was also a socialist. The Nazi party was the National Socialist Party. This is a point that liberals keep trying to resist, claiming that the term fascist can only be applied to conservatives.
Fascism, according to the textbook definition, is a close relationship between the state and industry, where the state favors those manufacturers and other businesses that do their bidding. So objectively, can you not admit that the big trillion dollar bailouts of industry and financial institutions looks like fascism? Does not the U.S. Federal government right now still own stock in General Motors? Why isn't that fascism, according to the textbook definition?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
National Socialism had many arguably good points to it, most notably the focus on class cooperation as opposed to class struggle (one can also make an argument for its supposed good points by pointing out that Germany managed to fight off the entire world's industrial might fairly effectively for 6 years) but never was german National Socialism "socialist" in any key way Republicans fear the term, the Nazi Party cooperated with big business after its reorganization after the failed Beer Hall Coup, never nationalized key industries (preferring instead to give close oversight and to integrate government and business to make increase output) and things like healthcare were actually IMPERIAL GERMAN aka WWI German policies not originating from the Nazi's.
The very name and its policies were an effort to be able to attract the largest pool of supporters from many different groups but National Socialism is first and foremost a NATIONALIST party that took "Deutschland Uber Alles" as the literal and enevitable result and goal of all of their policies.
Socialism is by definition an internationalist movement that views borders, and independence movements as cosmopolitan abberations and worthless historical dead ends to be swept aside in the eventual communist mass uprising. Concepts of being ethnically distinct was a bourgoesis coping mechanism force fed by the capitalist elites, opiates along with religion to galvanize the workers into fighting other workers from other nations with delusional concepts of "patriotism" and as such needed to be destroyed by all means nessasary and replaced by a single new internationalist "people" the "Soviet" people to encompass ALL peoples.
Fascism is the direct link and integration of big business and the state in politics, socialism is the state acting as the single arbitrator between different interest groups in politics (people, the unions, firms), National Socialism copies and merges together both models whenever and only when convenient to subject all resources into an autarkic system designed to direct the state and the people (now one and the same) towards goals of nationalistic dirigist revanchism.
There are huge distinctions but since your not a political science student you are probably incapable and unwilling to make that distinction, preferring to cling to your blase ideal of equating nazi's and socialists as being "one in the same" for the sake of your appeal to godwin's law rather then reasoned argument where you might have to concede being wrong.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: This is a point that liberals keep trying to resist, claiming that the term fascist can only be applied to conservatives. ... Why isn't that fascism, according to the textbook definition?
posted
People voted for Obama for a multitude of reasons. Some black conservatives voted for Obama because he was black. Liberals voted for him because he was the most liberal senator in the senate. Some people voted for him to "make history" because it was about time we had a black president. Some people voted for him because they were stupid enough to believe the "Hope and Change" promise. (ever wonder what idiots keep the infomercials on the air?)
What we need to look at are the independents. Independents will determine the outcome. The vast majority of conservatives and liberals will vote for their ideals. Obama was nearing a 70% approval rating with independents just after the election....he's in the mid-30%s now.
If Obama does like Clinton did, and pretend to be a conservative...he might be reelected. If they can keep him on the teleprompter, he might succeed in fooling the middle that he is middle. Liberals and conservatives know exactly what he is....a liberal. How well can he play the middle(independents)? Simple marketing terms of "Hope and Change" aren't going to work after he has a record.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
He's not the most liberal, please give proof.
IP: Logged |
posted
Liberal organizations that keep track of the way people vote, rated Barack Obama in his Senate voting record as even more consistently in harmony with liberal positions than Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. This is one area where conservative and liberal watchdog organizations were in agreement. Obama was not merely liberal, he was the MOST liberal member of the Senate, judging by his voting record.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah but, how liberal was he? In other words, how liberal were Democrats as a whole during his two years in the seat?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We can't be sure about anything concerning Obama. Is he the most extreme liberal, a liberal or a moderate? Is he an Athiest, a Christian, a black liberation theologist, or Muslim?
At any given point in his life...he's been all of them.
In 2007 he was the "most liberal" senator. In 2011, he'll fight to be a moderate, his second term depends on it. Just as Black Liberation Theology got him elected as a state senator from S. Side Chicago.
Of all the labels and groups he's temporarily clung to, liberal is the only one that really sticks.
If I had to guess,....he's an atheist politician with liberal ideology. Progressivism is his religion....the religion of big government. A big government he believes he should be in control of.
Pretending to be "X" during his other phases of life....whatever suited him best at the time. In 2011 we'll be presented with a moderate looking for reelection.
Only in America can you be an atheist, christian, muslim, liberal, moderate and the first black president that is half white.....all at once.
If being partially black qualifies you as the first black, do you think he is the first black president? He's not the first president with black blood. He looks black....appearance only matters to a true racist.
My father is a member of the Ojibwe tribe, but I am not. My mother was white and I'm too diluted for acceptance into their "community". Who is the racist? Race is a social construct. Racists consider obama to be the first black president. Being 50/50, he might've ended up looking white.
I despise "community" organizers....they are racist. I can't belong to the same community as my father because of the pollution of my mother. I'm too white.
quote:Only in America can you be an atheist, christian, muslim, liberal, moderate and the first black president that is half white.....all at once.
Only in the fictional America presented on Fox News...
In real life, I suspect Obama is the intellectual idealist he typically seems to be. His actions and policies show strong consistency with the set of principles he claims to adhere to, although his positions do seem to evolve a bit over time.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yeah but, how liberal was he? In other words, how liberal were Democrats as a whole during his two years in the seat?
Nowhere near liberal enough.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tresopax, I cannot fault you for being willing to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt. But you do seem very optimistic . I believe Obama is way too cynical and self-centered to be idealistic.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Liberal organizations that keep track of the way people vote, rated Barack Obama in his Senate voting record as even more consistently in harmony with liberal positions than Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.
Ron has worded this in a way that suggests he understands the methodology, but somewhat disingenuously does not decrypt it for you. Allow me.
Because there is no good way to determine what is a "liberal" position or a "conservative" position, in reality this report (unlike some other reports, which do attempt to judge the political "leaning" of a given bill) historically determines partisanship of an issue. A bill that half the Democrats and half the Republicans vote for is considered a non-partisan bill; a bill that all the Democrats vote for but which no Republicans vote for is considered a "liberal" bill, when in actuality it's simply a bill that is, for one reason or another, rejected by one party and favored by another.
Over years, you can estimate the statistical likelihood that a bill which is strongly partisan will receive cross-party votes. You can also identify which bills were the most partisan and which were the least. You can also identify which individuals voted across party lines, and on which sort of bills.
When they say "X is the most liberal Senator" or "X is the most conservative Senator," what they mean is "X voted with his party, most consistently, on those bills which were most decided along party lines."
It has absolutely nothing to do with actual "liberal" or "conservative" policy or philosophy; it purely has to do with party fealty. It is unsurprising, then, that a party's presidential candidates are most likely in any given year to align themselves with their party's platform (or the other way around: the party votes with their prospective candidate.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I'm not even sure what "liberal organizations" Ron is referring to, or what research you're specifically referring to, but are you familiar with Keith Poole's work at UCSD? His DW-NOMINATE works somewhat similarly to what you've outlined above. While I agree it's difficult to interpret "more liberal" or "less liberal" I think that in general if parties tend to be ideologically consistent, those statistical effects should emerge from the data. And if you look at the data qualitatively, I would say the scores pretty well match intuition about what it means to be "liberal" or "conservative."
Anyway, in both the 109th and 110th congresses Obama is ranked by Poole's algorithm as less liberal than both Kennedy and Kerry. His score ranks as 17th most liberal in the 109th (out of 45 Dems) and 19th most liberal in the 110th (out of 51 Dems). That puts him somewhere left of the median Democratic Senator for those congresses, but nowhere near the ragin' liberal that Kennedy (let alone Feingold) was.
<edit>You can find the historical rank orderings for each Congressional session here. The table formats take a little visual parsing, but the significant number is the column immediately adjacent to the legislator's name; negative means more liberal, positive means more conservative.</edit>
<edit2>I should also say that Poole's methodology gives a single number for a politician's entire career in a particular office. So Kennedy's very liberal score may be due to very liberal votes from earlier congresses rather than the 109th or 110th.</edit2>
<edit3>Or maybe it doesn't; some individuals numbers change congress to congress and others don't. Maybe they're recomputed for each election cycle?</edit3>
posted
As reported on the NPR website, The National Journal published a ranking of senators in 2007. It included liberal rankings of votes relative to other senators in economic issues, social issues, and foreign affairs, with a composite score.
quote:It is true that the National Journal rated Obama "the most liberal senator" in 2007, based on 99 votes in the Senate that year. But in his previous two years, Obama was rated 10th and 16th most liberal. So his career voting record is far from "most liberal."
quote:Obama and his campaign have disputed the National Journal's 2007 rating by saying that he missed too many votes while campaigning for the rating to be representative, and that some of the votes (particularly one in favor of stricter ethics rules) should not properly be seen as either liberal or conservative.
posted
It is pretty hard to dispute that Barack Obama is an extreme liberal. It is also interesting that while Obama was ranked #1 on the list as most liberal senator through all his votes in 2007, #3 on the list was Sen. Joseph Biden. So in the last presidential election, the Democrats presented America with a team that was 1 and 3 on the most liberal list.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It is pretty hard to dispute that Barack Obama is an extreme liberal.
Yeah, it was pretty hard to use the search function at FactCheck. I had to type like three whole words.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It is pretty hard to dispute that Barack Obama is an extreme liberal. It is also interesting that while Obama was ranked #1 on the list as most liberal senator through all his votes in 2007, #3 on the list was Sen. Joseph Biden. So in the last presidential election, the Democrats presented America with a team that was 1 and 3 on the most liberal list.
Remember, boys and girls...what happened in 2007 exists in a bubble and remains true for all time.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you could take the economy off to a corner somewhere and quietly explain that I'd really appreciate it. Thanks.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, how sure are you that FactCheck is really impartial? There are many people who raise questions about their political bias. Here are a few examples:
quote:Factcheck.org is funded by the Annenberg Foundation, which also funded the Wm. Ayers/Barack Obama Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and thus cannot be trusted to verify anything ‘Obama’ – including his faux birth cert.
National Review article’s closing paragraph says it all:
One of the really surprising developments in this election has been how the “fact-checking” features of major news organizations have been sloppy and vague with large omissions…just about always to the benefit of Obama.
I don’t bother with sites like “factcheck.org” because the title itself raises red flags. Remember that the left always chooses titles for their orgainzations that are exactly the opposite of what they really represent. It’s like the “People’s Republic of North Korea”.
Fact-Check.org bent over backwards a while ago to claim that a McCain ad which said that Obama supported legislation that expanded a comprehensive sex ed program to include kindergarten---the piece claimed it was false ONLY because of Obama's statements post-mortem to the bill that it was not his intent---BUT THE LAW HE HELPED PASS DID IN FACT EXPAND A COMPREHENSIVE SEX ED PROGRAM TO INCLUDE KINDERGARTEN.
Snopes has also been caught showing a liberal political bias.
The truth is, there is no place you can just browse to in one link and be sure you are getting real, impartial, unbiased fact-checking. In truth, there is no short-cut. You have to check the facts for yourself.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The National Review telling us if something has a liberal bias? Why don't we ask The New Yorker if The National review is right about factcheck.org having a liberal bias?
quote:One of the really surprising developments in this election has been how the “fact-checking” features of major news organizations have been sloppy and vague with large omissions…just about always to the benefit of Obama.
No no no no no. I cannot tell you how many times I've read factcheck where it clearly states that Obama was mistaken about his facts.
Also, I should have stopped reading after, "including his faux birth cert."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, I should have stopped reading after, "including his faux birth cert."
That's exactly what I did. Once they lose credibility, it's really about entertainment value. Didn't see it, so I stopped.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can see how if someone's easily swayed by chain email propagation of rumor and mistruth and similar institutuons, and continues to really seriously believe that Obama is a Musim and has no genuine birth certificate, you reflexively have to believe that snopes is liberal pollution of the truth masquerading as fact checking.
It's why I was unsurprised that Ron pulled that stunt over a year ago.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Mucus, how sure are you that FactCheck is really impartial? There are many people who raise questions about their political bias. Here are a few examples:
quote:Factcheck.org is funded by the Annenberg Foundation, which also funded the Wm. Ayers/Barack Obama Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and thus cannot be trusted to verify anything ‘Obama’ – including his faux birth cert.
National Review article’s closing paragraph says it all:
One of the really surprising developments in this election has been how the “fact-checking” features of major news organizations have been sloppy and vague with large omissions…just about always to the benefit of Obama.
I don’t bother with sites like “factcheck.org” because the title itself raises red flags. Remember that the left always chooses titles for their orgainzations that are exactly the opposite of what they really represent. It’s like the “People’s Republic of North Korea”.
Fact-Check.org bent over backwards a while ago to claim that a McCain ad which said that Obama supported legislation that expanded a comprehensive sex ed program to include kindergarten---the piece claimed it was false ONLY because of Obama's statements post-mortem to the bill that it was not his intent---BUT THE LAW HE HELPED PASS DID IN FACT EXPAND A COMPREHENSIVE SEX ED PROGRAM TO INCLUDE KINDERGARTEN.
Snopes has also been caught showing a liberal political bias.
The truth is, there is no place you can just browse to in one link and be sure you are getting real, impartial, unbiased fact-checking. In truth, there is no short-cut. You have to check the facts for yourself.
I'm sorry to quote you, if it were FB I would just "like" it. All people, liberal or conservative, should verify. The vast majority are manipulated by political commercials. The election commercials for the left and right don't tell you the truth. Neither side tells you the law proposed, they scare the uninformed voter, one one way or the other.
The educated voter is the best voter. The right and left is informed. Unfortunately, elections depend upon the middle.... The middle are the folks that keep infomercials on the air. The middle American is drawn to "Slap Chop" and is concerned about Paris Hilton.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good lord. I'm getting too angry. I don't know why. Well, I do, but whatever. This one went too far. I'll leave the McDonalds one as a testament to my mood tonight, but this one... it seems like bad taste.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
A British MP had his seat voided during the election for and I paraphrase "saying/speaking untruthful statements about his opponent including insinuating that his opponent was supporting terrorism by not speaking out against angry Muslem demonstrators."
Wow. Half of congress would be out of a job if we applied this here.
Also the GOP apparantly intends to have 7 hearings a week 40 weeks a year.
IP: Logged |
posted
I do however want to hear your Khrushchev impression.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
'When asked by Nixon whether the Premier realized that a nuclear war could lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people Kruschev looked the president in the eye and said. "So?"'
IP: Logged |
posted
If the reports I heard were true, toward the end of his time in office Nikita Khruschev became a converted Christian, and that is why he did not fight back when the Politburo decided to remove him from power. The charge that he had become a Christian in the officially atheistic state, was the one accusation he could not deny. I hope the story is true. I would like to believe there is hope for anyone to realize the error of his ways, and turn from darkness to light.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If the reports I heard were true,
You begin a lot of clearly false things this way, so you better source those reports.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If the reports I heard were true, toward the end of his time in office Nikita Khruschev became a converted Christian, and that is why he did not fight back when the Politburo decided to remove him from power. The charge that he had become a Christian in the officially atheistic state, was the one accusation he could not deny. I hope the story is true. I would like to believe there is hope for anyone to realize the error of his ways, and turn from darkness to light.
Pffft. Kruschev was removed because the Politburo thought he had caved in to the Americans regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis but they didn't actually know that the Americans had secretly agreed to pull their obsolete IRBMs from Turkey.
He didn't fight back because he couldn't as it was either bow out peacefully or risk a military coup as the Soviet Army was pissed at Kruschev focusing the military budget on nuclear deterrence rather then building up the ground forces and backing out of the Missile Crisis was seen as the last straw.
By backing down peacefully he could save the life of himself and his family and be able to retire peacefully, if he didn't he'ld have been shot.
IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
