| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/05/2008 04:34:29 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by eqsite:
You see, you say things like that and it makes it sound like you've got all the answers. That you have the divine understanding of what's right and wrong in this country. If you really believe that, then bully for you -- go do something about it. But for most of us, the world isn't that black and white. And for you to dismiss out of hand the fact that a large number of intelligent people may differ with you doesn't do your argument any service. I don't think conservatives are idiots. I respect their opinions, even when I may disagree with them. I try to see the world through their eyes. I am sure there are conservatives that do the same, but your vitriol does not paint you as someone who does. It just comes across as someone regurgitating everything they hear on FOX News. |
Pots, Kettles, glass houses and stones.
You say things like "It just comes across as someone regurgitating everything they hear on FOX News" and it "makes it sound like you've got all the answers. That you have the divine understanding... for you to dismiss out of hand the fact that a large number of intelligent people may differ with you doesn't do your argument any service"
I'm sure that you meant to imply that Fox News is biased towards the conservative side. But the truth is that a recent study by Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University ( ref here (note: PDF )) found that Fox News was the most NON-BIASED of all the major networks:,
"Who’s Fair and Balanced?: Fox News Channel’s coverage was more balanced toward both parties than the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were split almost evenly – 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates – 49% positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties.
On the three broadcast networks, opinion on Democratic candidates split 47% positive vs. 53% negative, while evaluations of Republicans were more negative – 40% positive vs. 60% negative. For both parties combined, network evaluations were almost 3 to 2 negative in tone, i.e. 41% positive vs. 59% negative." |
It didn't take long to find this: //www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affairs
Originally posted by excerpt:
Media Transparency documents that between 1986 and 2005 CMPA received 55 grants totaling $2,960,916 (unadjusted for inflation).[6] The data reveals that the overwhelming proportion of CMPA's funding comes from conservative foundations.
|
Hi Pot, I'm the Kettle -- nice to meet ya! |
Other than innuendo about funding, is there any substantive proof that the study was NOT true, or was NOT conducted in an un-biased manner? Or would THAT kind of refutation take too long to find?
It's EASY to make implications by innuendo. But quite another to actually provide proof that funding caused the study to be faulty. |
|
|
|
09/05/2008 04:36:54 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by eqsite:
You see, you say things like that and it makes it sound like you've got all the answers. That you have the divine understanding of what's right and wrong in this country. If you really believe that, then bully for you -- go do something about it. But for most of us, the world isn't that black and white. And for you to dismiss out of hand the fact that a large number of intelligent people may differ with you doesn't do your argument any service. I don't think conservatives are idiots. I respect their opinions, even when I may disagree with them. I try to see the world through their eyes. I am sure there are conservatives that do the same, but your vitriol does not paint you as someone who does. It just comes across as someone regurgitating everything they hear on FOX News. |
Pots, Kettles, glass houses and stones.
You say things like "It just comes across as someone regurgitating everything they hear on FOX News" and it "makes it sound like you've got all the answers. That you have the divine understanding... for you to dismiss out of hand the fact that a large number of intelligent people may differ with you doesn't do your argument any service"
I'm sure that you meant to imply that Fox News is biased towards the conservative side. But the truth is that a recent study by Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University ( ref here (note: PDF )) found that Fox News was the most NON-BIASED of all the major networks:,
"Who’s Fair and Balanced?: Fox News Channel’s coverage was more balanced toward both parties than the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were split almost evenly – 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates – 49% positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties.
On the three broadcast networks, opinion on Democratic candidates split 47% positive vs. 53% negative, while evaluations of Republicans were more negative – 40% positive vs. 60% negative. For both parties combined, network evaluations were almost 3 to 2 negative in tone, i.e. 41% positive vs. 59% negative." |
It didn't take long to find this: //www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affairs
Originally posted by excerpt:
Media Transparency documents that between 1986 and 2005 CMPA received 55 grants totaling $2,960,916 (unadjusted for inflation).[6] The data reveals that the overwhelming proportion of CMPA's funding comes from conservative foundations.
|
Hi Pot, I'm the Kettle -- nice to meet ya! |
This made me close the page; "the seed money for [the] center was solicited by the likes of Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson"
/shakes head
|
|
|
|
09/05/2008 04:37:28 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by metatate:
NO!
Did you honestly think there was validity to that "study"? Honestly. |
Same question as I posed to eqsite. Prove that the study was faulty or biased either in its preparation, execution, or findings. |
|
|
|
09/05/2008 04:37:35 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Other than innuendo about funding, is there any substantive proof that the study was NOT true, or was NOT conducted in an un-biased manner? Or would THAT kind of refutation take too long to find?
It's EASY to make implications by innuendo. But quite another to actually provide proof that funding caused the study to be faulty. |
Yeah, I was expecting that kind of reponse. Turn that argument on yourself -- what proof is there that the study isn't biased. If we can't prove it either way, it adds nothing to the conversation. Furthermore, I have no interest in debating the fair and balanced nature of FOX News. I've said already in this thread that I think all the major news outlets have bias. My point was very specific to HawkeyeLonewolf that it sounded like he was regurgitating something he'd heard instead of providing any of his own insight. |
|
|
|
09/05/2008 04:42:21 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by metatate:
NO!
Did you honestly think there was validity to that "study"? Honestly. |
Same question as I posed to eqsite. Prove that the study was faulty or biased either in its preparation, execution, or findings. |
Because Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson would never ever fund a study that would oppose their views. doh!
Message edited by author 2008-09-05 17:21:57. |
|
|
|
09/05/2008 04:43:24 PM · #131 |
I smell another  RonB red-herring special detour!
Hang onto your hats while the thread is derailed into meaningless minutiae.
Message edited by author 2008-09-05 16:58:08. |
|
|
|
09/05/2008 04:52:30 PM · #132 |
| Looks like ALL the controversies regarding Fox news are accusations of conservative bias. If they were really fair and balanced, you would expect at least some people to complain that they're biased in the other direction. |
|
|
|
09/05/2008 04:57:15 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I smell another RonB red-herring special detour!
Hang onto your hats while the thread is derailed into meaningless minutiae. |
There wouldn't be a red herring, as you call it, if eqsite hadn't posted a non sequitur about Fox News. If folks would refrain from posting those kinds of insinuations, I wouldn't be tempted to rebut. AND, everyone should feel free to ignore my posts - which would stop the "red herring special detour" in its tracks. If anything, you added to that detour. Feel free to stop doing so at any time. |
|
|
|
09/05/2008 04:59:26 PM · #134 |
How about: prove that it is legit.
Apparently not too many people are siding with fox news as being truly non-biased.
//www.outfoxed.org/
People have actually dedicated movies and web-sites to "out" this station, just in case no one noticed.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by metatate:
NO!
Did you honestly think there was validity to that "study"? Honestly. |
Same question as I posed to eqsite. Prove that the study was faulty or biased either in its preparation, execution, or findings. |
|
|
|
|
09/05/2008 05:00:23 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I smell another RonB red-herring special detour!
Hang onto your hats while the thread is derailed into meaningless minutiae. |
There wouldn't be a red herring, as you call it, if eqsite hadn't posted a non sequitur about Fox News. If folks would refrain from posting those kinds of insinuations, I wouldn't be tempted to rebut. AND, everyone should feel free to ignore my posts - which would stop the "red herring special detour" in its tracks. If anything, you added to that detour. Feel free to stop doing so at any time. |
Justify it in whatever way makes you feel warm and fuzzy.
It's still you running threads off track in pursuit of meaningless details.
We can make this discussion of your tactic into your latest detour if you like.
Message edited by author 2008-09-05 17:02:17. |
|
|
|
09/05/2008 05:02:41 PM · #136 |
UM, VERY suspicious that when I change the variables on the site so that the "Obama Tax Cut" can not be fudged to say McCain would give you more money, there is suddenly no red lettering underneath pointing out how much more Obama's tax cut is than McCain's. Such a clearly biased design makes me doubt the honesty of the rest of the programming.
More compelling to me is what I'm going to get for my tax dolars and if deficit spending will follow these trends:
 |
|
|
|
09/05/2008 07:49:36 PM · #137 |
WHO is Sara Palin?
Message edited by author 2008-09-05 19:49:46. |
|
|
|
09/05/2008 08:35:08 PM · #138 |
//img49.imageshack.us/img49/3499/idjuthc0.png
Message edited by author 2008-09-05 20:35:19.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2008 09:40:06 PM · #139 |
Skeery. One of her big talking points just went *poof* too. |
|
|
|
09/05/2008 10:02:54 PM · #140 |
| You really think that getting back 2.1 million of the tax payers dollars back out of a 2.7 million frivolous expenditure is "poof"? |
|
|
|
09/05/2008 10:07:55 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Skeery. One of her big talking points just went *poof* too. |
Which one is that? I read the article and couldn't determine which one it was. |
|
|
|
09/05/2008 10:30:42 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
You really think that getting back 2.1 million of the tax payers dollars back out of a 2.7 million frivolous expenditure is "poof"? |
No, THIS is *poof*, and the $2.1 million dollar return is a drop in the bucket compared to the debt she ran up in Wasilla... a town of considerably fewer people than the 9,000 figure paraded around the media. Speaking of which, note the link at the end pointing out that the supposedly "biased liberal media" has virtually ignored many glaring discrepancies. |
|
|
|
09/05/2008 10:37:19 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
... Of course, there are people in cities that are blind enough to remain conservative. Of course, there are people in rural areas that are insightful enough to be liberal, but I'm talking about trends. |
That's such a lovely POV. |
|
|
|
09/05/2008 10:45:46 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by metatate:
... the education of Obama ... |
He's a lawyer isn't he? Everyone knows lawyers are excellent at double-speak. He can make a fine speech, that's for sure. :-) |
A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review. He was a practicing attorney for civil rights and community organizations, and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for 12 years. |
Ah yes. He's quite clever, for sure. I like the way he worked this out, and he was just a rookie politician then...
From Barack Obama : Political Career Timeline. Is it factual? Maybe yes, maybe no. A couple of excerpts that speak to me of Barack Obama's skills as a lawyer/politician.
"When Barack Obama decided he wanted to run for the Illinois Senate in 1996, he ensured his candidacy by successfully challenging the nomination petitions of his four competitors."
"1996, Jan - Obama has his four competitor petitions invalidated; he emerges as the only candidate."
There's more in this article; some good, some bad (depending on your POV of course) - all of it interesting. :-) |
|
|
|
09/05/2008 10:49:44 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
You really think that getting back 2.1 million of the tax payers dollars back out of a 2.7 million frivolous expenditure is "poof"? |
No, THIS is *poof*, and the $2.1 million dollar return is a drop in the bucket compared to the debt she ran up in Wasilla... a town of considerably fewer people than the 9,000 figure paraded around the media. Speaking of which, note the link at the end pointing out that the supposedly "biased liberal media" has virtually ignored many glaring discrepancies. |
The second link doesn't really state anything different than the first one you put up, so what's your point? What do you think she should have done with the jet, keep it? Losing money on a used item is pretty normal in most cases, keeping the plane instead of liquidating it would be wasting the money that the jet was worth, not to mention the cost of maintenance. You can hammer Palin on many issues and statements with good reason but imo, this is just trying to make something of nothing. But with all the partisan banter in this thread from both sides, what should I expect.
Message edited by author 2008-09-05 22:54:34. |
|
|
|
09/05/2008 10:53:59 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by metatate:
... the education of Obama ... |
He's a lawyer isn't he? Everyone knows lawyers are excellent at double-speak. He can make a fine speech, that's for sure. :-) |
A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review. He was a practicing attorney for civil rights and community organizations, and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for 12 years. |
Ah yes. He's quite clever, for sure. I like the way he worked this out, and he was just a rookie politician then...
From Barack Obama : Political Career Timeline. Is it factual? Maybe yes, maybe no. A couple of excerpts that speak to me of Barack Obama's skills as a lawyer/politician.
"When Barack Obama decided he wanted to run for the Illinois Senate in 1996, he ensured his candidacy by successfully challenging the nomination petitions of his four competitors."
"1996, Jan - Obama has his four competitor petitions invalidated; he emerges as the only candidate."
There's more in this article; some good, some bad (depending on your POV of course) - all of it interesting. :-) |
Doesn't say why they were invalidated but I would venture to say that if they were invalidated then they were....invalid. You gotta play by the rules and if your opponent is smart enough to catch you breaking them then you deserve to lose/ be disqualified. |
|
|
|
09/05/2008 11:09:39 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by metatate:
... the education of Obama ... |
He's a lawyer isn't he? Everyone knows lawyers are excellent at double-speak. He can make a fine speech, that's for sure. :-) |
A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review. He was a practicing attorney for civil rights and community organizations, and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for 12 years. |
Ah yes. He's quite clever, for sure. I like the way he worked this out, and he was just a rookie politician then...
From Barack Obama : Political Career Timeline. Is it factual? Maybe yes, maybe no. A couple of excerpts that speak to me of Barack Obama's skills as a lawyer/politician.
"When Barack Obama decided he wanted to run for the Illinois Senate in 1996, he ensured his candidacy by successfully challenging the nomination petitions of his four competitors."
"1996, Jan - Obama has his four competitor petitions invalidated; he emerges as the only candidate."
There's more in this article; some good, some bad (depending on your POV of course) - all of it interesting. :-) |
Doesn't say why they were invalidated but I would venture to say that if they were invalidated then they were....invalid. You gotta play by the rules and if your opponent is smart enough to catch you breaking them then you deserve to lose/ be disqualified. |
CNN ran this story a while back and from what I remember there wasn't any evidence that his opponents were breaking any laws. He simply challenged their signatures and was successful in getting a lot of the signatures thrown out for stupid reasons similar to the situation with the chads in Florida back in the 2000 election. The move was totally legal by Obama and he was successful in winning his first race without anyone else on the ballot. The only real issue I have with that is it goes against everything he is now campaigning for in regards to change.
ETA: For the Obama faithful, I have similar (and more) issues with McCain so please keep your dogs at bay. Mkay? :)
Message edited by author 2008-09-05 23:20:20.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2008 11:37:12 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Of course, there are people in cities that are blind enough to remain conservative. Of course, there are people in rural areas that are insightful enough to be liberal, but I'm talking about trends. |
You calling conservatives blind is no better than HawkeyeLonewolf calling liberals blind. I'm fairly liberal (I live in the second most liberal city in the US, although by the standards here, I'm more of a centrist), but there are plenty of intelligent people on both sides of the aisle. Making statements like yours and Hawkeye's will not help the divisiveness in the country. |
I didn't say anything about intelligence. The intolerance of the conservative position requires a certain amount of blindness to other perspectives. They might call it a "strong backbone" or "holding the course." I call it blindness. I'm not going to whitewash my language to help [fight] the divisiveness in the country. The divisiveness over the heliocentric vs. geocentric models of the universe was not solved by a compromise. It was solved by the determination of people who sought for Truth by means of Reason.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2008 09:35:49 AM · #149 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Of course, there are people in cities that are blind enough to remain conservative. Of course, there are people in rural areas that are insightful enough to be liberal, but I'm talking about trends. |
You calling conservatives blind is no better than HawkeyeLonewolf calling liberals blind. I'm fairly liberal (I live in the second most liberal city in the US, although by the standards here, I'm more of a centrist), but there are plenty of intelligent people on both sides of the aisle. Making statements like yours and Hawkeye's will not help the divisiveness in the country. |
I didn't say anything about intelligence. The intolerance of the conservative position requires a certain amount of blindness to other perspectives. They might call it a "strong backbone" or "holding the course." I call it blindness. I'm not going to whitewash my language to help [fight] the divisiveness in the country. The divisiveness over the heliocentric vs. geocentric models of the universe was not solved by a compromise. It was solved by the determination of people who sought for Truth by means of Reason. |
I'm not talking about compromise. I'm talking about treating each other with respect. Calling someone blind will not open them to listening to your reason. You can disagree with someone (even to the point of having no respect for them or their beliefs) and still treat them with respect. You'll find that your audience becomes much more receptive at that point. |
|
|
|
09/06/2008 11:31:29 AM · #150 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
You really think that getting back 2.1 million of the tax payers dollars back out of a 2.7 million frivolous expenditure is "poof"? |
No, THIS is *poof*, and the $2.1 million dollar return is a drop in the bucket compared to the debt she ran up in Wasilla... a town of considerably fewer people than the 9,000 figure paraded around the media. Speaking of which, note the link at the end pointing out that the supposedly "biased liberal media" has virtually ignored many glaring discrepancies. |
It didn't take long to find this and
this |
|
