AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

So despite that "Conservatives for Patients' Rights" hold an opinions you don't share, and have the hated word 'conservative' in their name, what connection do they have that would color their conclusions in a way to make them an unacceptable source? Do you have sources that discredit their conclusions? Do you object to their statements being used as illustrative of what many Americans are thinking and wanting and believing (which I believe is how I used that source--can't remember for sure)?

Well, I mean formed by Richard Scott, the former chief executive of HCA Inc. - even you should admit that such should make one at least suspicious about 'Conservatives for Patients' Rights' ...

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

If the President could just once put aside his ego ...

That would be difficult.
Technically, of course possible, if e.g. the Vice President would speak instead of him.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Foxie has already contradicted her own claim about bias; she can't see how she herself uses biased articles to make her point, but criticizes others when they use FactCheck.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

So despite that "Conservatives for Patients' Rights" hold an opinions you don't share, and have the hated word 'conservative' in their name, what connection do they have that would color their conclusions in a way to make them an unacceptable source? Do you have sources that discredit their conclusions? Do you object to their statements being used as illustrative of what many Americans are thinking and wanting and believing (which I believe is how I used that source--can't remember for sure)?

Well, I mean formed by Richard Scott, the former chief executive of HCA Inc. - even you should admit that such should make one at least suspicious about 'Conservatives for Patients' Rights' ...

Why? A hospital administrator lobbying for patients' rights? Seems to me that he could be lobbying against his own business interests as increased patients' rights would not make the HCA network of healthcare facilities and services easier to administrate.

However, yes he could have a personal vested interest in not having the government take control of the medical facilities and services he administrated.

But this group belongs in the debate because it represents those directly affected by legislation that is being debated just as I as a small business owner should be in the debate re how proposed legislation will affect my business and just as all taxpayers should be in the debate re how proposed legislation will affect us personally.

If those directly affected are considered too biased to participate, why have any debate at all?

Because of their obvious bias, Conservatives for Patients' Rights of course should be fact checked just like other groups with a bias should be fact checked before assuming they have their information right. They do, however, provide a lot of links to others who are also engaged in the debate. It is a good website that pulls a lot of information together.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Yeah, I should have added to my little litany that at least one person would completely miss the point being made and would accuse me of whining or complaining about being 'attacked' or whatever, followed by the usual glad hands and high fives from various numbnuts who also don't have a clue what the subject even is, much less a reasoned response to it.

I would have so enjoyed being right about that too.

You whine about being attacked and called names, and then you whine about people accusing you of whining about being attacked and called names. Congratulations, you've set a new standard. That's not ordinary whining -- that's meta-whining.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

No, I was not whining about being attacked and called names. I simply named those who had most recently turned the discussion toward criticism and accusations of me rather than debating the issue as an illustration of the point I was making. The point was that numbnuts and brainwashed liberals and/or the blindly partisan will attack or focus on the messenger or unrelated persons instead of making a reasoned argument for their own point of view which most cannot do.

So what are you? A numbnut? Brainwashed liberal? Blindly partisan? Or something else? You obviously missed the point I was making.

I won't get into a food fight with you and will not engage further if you continue on that course.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

So what are you? A numbnut? Brainwashed liberal? Blindly partisan? Or something else? You obviously missed the point I was making.

We are just a trio being named by Foxfyre, joe.
As someone who is very literate in classics, you know that a quartet makes not only more fun .... but there is more partiture. Wink

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Obama was closely associated with and worked for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and also was involved in funneling a LOT of morny to ACORN through Annenberg connections.

We've had this discussion before, but why not do it again? Obama was the chairman of the board of directors for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995-1999. At the time that he was selected, the establishing grant from the Annenberg Challenge had already been awarded. I've seen no evidence that the Chicago Annenberg Challenge funneled money to ACORN, much less that Obama himself was involved in said funneling or that such funneling was nefarious.

Quote:

Factcheck.org is one of the arms of the Annenberg group

No, it is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center from the University of Pennsylvania. Both the Annenberg Challenge and the Anneberg Public Policy Center have Annenberg in the name because they are both funded by the Annenberg Foundation (and I know you know who Annenberg was, so I'm not even going to bother with his conservative credentials). But they are not run by the same people and have no operational connections.

Quote:

, one that has vigorously defended ACORN, and it is reasonable to expect that all this would also color their conclusions re President Obama and his agenda.

All this? All what?

Quote:

At least there is enough blurring of the lines there to make it prudent to fact check Factcheck.org before swallowing their conclusions hook, line, and sinker. Basically it is a good site, however, and I visit it often and quote from it often.

Hardly a "blurring of the lines". If you perceive it has a liberal or reality-based bias it probably has more to do with the fact that it is a university project than the fact that Obama once presided over the board of a public school project that got funding from the same foundation.

Quote:

So despite that "Conservatives for Patients' Rights" hold an opinions you don't share, and have the hated word 'conservative' in their name, what connection do they have that would color their conclusions in a way to make them an unacceptable source?

It's not "connections" that make it not neutral (though I wouldn't be surprised to find some). It's the presence of a clear agenda. Do you need me to point that out to you or is it as obvious to you as it is to me?

Quote:

Do you have sources that discredit their conclusions?

Which conclusions?

Quote:

Do you object to their statements being used as illustrative of what many Americans are thinking and wanting and believing (which I believe is how I used that source--can't remember for sure)?

Yes. They aren't a public poll. The fact that they have ideas expressed on a website means nothing as to "what many Americans are thinking". I'd say the last election was a better data point for that.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

You really don't get it, do you? You complain about people calling you names rather than addressing the issues, but all you do is call them names and not address the issues that they bring up. It's amazing that you're able to see your computer keyboard with that enormous beam in your eye.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

For the record, the President's intended speech to the school kids today as posted is fine. Excellent even. And IF....and that is a big IF.....the teachers haven't been advised behind the scenes of how to discuss it which is valid concern of many parents, there should be no objection to anybody for their kids to see it.

If the President could just once put aside his ego and had not sent out that stupid 'assignment' to schools for the school kids. Had he simply posted the speech that intended to give to the school kids. Had he offered no suggestions to teachers as to how to steer the kids in their thinking. Had he done that there would have been no bruhaha over the speech at all. It would have been well received I think and he would have gained a point or two on the approval meter.

As it is, he insisted on poisoning the well and now many responsible parents are probably unnecessarily wary about it.

I swear, some people just don't learn all that quickly sometimes and our liberal President seems less bright in that department than most.

What a moronic ******* post.

You think that Obama sat down and reviewed the materials going out with this speech? Of course he didn't, he's too busy running the country. So, when you say he 'insisted on poisoning the well,' who exactly are you talking about?

More importantly, however; it doesn't matter what Obama had done differently, you bunch would still be bitching about him. The GOP is DYING to find items to attack him on, this presumption you have that a bunch of reasonable people sat around and got worried over reasonable concerns is bullshit. What happened is what usually happens: a few of your media leaders latched on to the idea, started attacking it, and the mouth-breathers who make up your voting based freaked out, right on cue. Nice work. Now you're stuck blaming the 'supporting materials,' a weak-ass fall back position if I ever saw one.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

I get what you're saying. And if you were honest, you would go back and put my comment you pulled out of it's context, put it back into its full context, and would admit that you're wrong about what you are saying.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

now who is calling people names?

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Not me.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

jesus wept.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Not me.

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Obama was closely associated with and worked for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and also was involved in funneling a LOT of morny to ACORN through Annenberg connections.

We've had this discussion before, but why not do it again? Obama was the chairman of the board of directors for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995-1999. At the time that he was selected, the establishing grant from the Annenberg Challenge had already been awarded. I've seen no evidence that the Chicago Annenberg Challenge funneled money to ACORN, much less that Obama himself was involved in said funneling or that such funneling was nefarious.

I don't know whether the CAC funded ACORN or not, which is why I did not make that connection. But all the Annenberg groups are part of one big happy family and you will find similarities in at least some of the emphasis in all of them. It was actually after Obama was a state Senator and then a US Senator that he was instrumental in funneling money to ACORN. You won't have any trouble finding plenty of connections between ACORN and Annenberg with a cursory google. For the record, however, here is the WSJ's summary of Obama's involvement with CAC:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html

Quote:

Quote:
Factcheck.org is one of the arms of the Annenberg group

No, it is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center from the University of Pennsylvania. Both the Annenberg Challenge and the Anneberg Public Policy Center have Annenberg in the name because they are both funded by the Annenberg Foundation (and I know you know who Annenberg was, so I'm not even going to bother with his conservative credentials). But they are not run by the same people and have no operational connections.

They don't have to have operational connections to have ideological connections. Do you think ideology is not taken into consideration when leaders of the various groups are chosen?

Quote:

Quote:
, one that has vigorously defended ACORN, and it is reasonable to expect that all this would also color their conclusions re President Obama and his agenda.

All this? All what?

Just check their record on defending ACORN. It's all there on the website. And you won't find more than validation of more than the mildest criticism of Obama.

Quote:

Quote:
At least there is enough blurring of the lines there to make it prudent to fact check Factcheck.org before swallowing their conclusions hook, line, and sinker. Basically it is a good site, however, and I visit it often and quote from it often.

Hardly a "blurring of the lines". If you perceive it has a liberal or reality-based bias it probably has more to do with the fact that it is a university project than the fact that Obama once presided over the board of a public school project that got funding from the same foundation.

That's your opinion. I have mine. Neither the 'university project' aspect nor the credentials of Annenberg himself factor into my opinion. (I think Annenberg

Quote:

Quote:
So despite that "Conservatives for Patients' Rights" hold an opinions you don't share, and have the hated word 'conservative' in their name, what connection do they have that would color their conclusions in a way to make them an unacceptable source?

It's not "connections" that make it not neutral (though I wouldn't be surprised to find some). It's the presence of a clear agenda. Do you need me to point that out to you or is it as obvious to you as it is to me?

So if somebody has an agenda, this automatically disqualifies them from participating in the debate? Please elaborate on your rationale for that. I will concede that an agenda does require that any research or facts they present should be verifiable from another source without such an agenda, but the fact that they have an agenda does not in itself disqualify their opinions. Nor does the claim from another source that there is no agenda always mean that there is no agenda.

Quote:

Quote:
Do you have sources that discredit their conclusions?

Which conclusions?

Whatever conclusions you object to. You must have some reason for thinking this group should not have a voice in the debate. You didn't specify so I have no idea why you arrived at that conclusion if you did.

Quote:

Quote:
Do you object to their statements being used as illustrative of what many Americans are thinking and wanting and believing (which I believe is how I used that source--can't remember for sure)?

Yes. They aren't a public poll. The fact that they have ideas expressed on a website means nothing as to "what many Americans are thinking". I'd say the last election was a better data point for that.

The recent polls would strongly suggest that the last election had little resemblance to what Americans were thinking. If it did, Obama wouldn't be sinking like a stone in his approval ratings and his agenda would be breezing through.

MACs are in general agreemen, and are even getting support from many non-MACs now , that the American people was sold a bill of goods in the last election that has turned out to be far different from its advertising.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

MACs are in general agreemen, and are even getting support from many non-MACs now , that the American people was sold a bill of goods in the last election that has turned out to be far different from its advertising.

Interesting response, especially when you look some posts back

A couple of minutes ago, Foxfyre wrote:

MAC, (i.e. mostly classical liberal which is a term that has been around a long long time but is poorly understood by most and too easily misunderstood by those unfamiliar with it)

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
MACs are in general agreemen, and are even getting support from many non-MACs now , that the American people was sold a bill of goods in the last election that has turned out to be far different from its advertising.

Interesting response, especially when you look some posts back

A couple of minutes ago, Foxfyre wrote:
MAC, (i.e. mostly classical liberal which is a term that has been around a long long time but is poorly understood by most and too easily misunderstood by those unfamiliar with it)

And how do you think those two statements are related Walter? I don't see the connection myself.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Obama was closely associated with and worked for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and also was involved in funneling a LOT of morny to ACORN through Annenberg connections.

We've had this discussion before, but why not do it again? Obama was the chairman of the board of directors for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995-1999. At the time that he was selected, the establishing grant from the Annenberg Challenge had already been awarded. I've seen no evidence that the Chicago Annenberg Challenge funneled money to ACORN, much less that Obama himself was involved in said funneling or that such funneling was nefarious.

I don't know whether the CAC funded ACORN or not, which is why I did not make that connection.

Then perhaps you can explain the bolded section above.

Quote:

But all the Annenberg groups are part of one big happy family and you will find similarities in at least some of the emphasis in all of them.

Certainly, as the philanthropist who established the Annenberg Foundation had specific things that he cared about -- one of them being education. That doesn't mean they are operationally connected or that Obama is "one of their own" though.

Quote:

It was actually after Obama was a state Senator and then a US Senator that he was instrumental in funneling money to ACORN. You won't have any trouble finding plenty of connections between ACORN and Annenberg with a cursory google. For the record, however, here is the WSJ's summary of Obama's involvement with CAC:

There's somewhat less opinionated information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Annenberg_Challenge

Though this is a fun game of connect the dots, it doesn't show how Factcheck.org favors Obama in its analysis.

Quote:

They don't have to have operational connections to have ideological connections. Do you think ideology is not taken into consideration when leaders of the various groups are chosen?

Sure. So what is Factcheck.org's "ideology"?

Quote:

Just check their record on defending ACORN. It's all there on the website. And you won't find more than validation of more than the mildest criticism of Obama.

First, ACORN does not equal SATAN. You keep throwing it out here like it's some sort of pariah that sullies every connection. If Factcheck.org "defended" ACORN, perhaps that's because the facts were on ACORN's side? Second, they are not an opinion site. Their job is not to criticize or validate others' criticism. It's to analyze claims. They have one on their home page now that contradicts claims the president is making.

Quote:

So if somebody has an agenda, this automatically disqualifies them from participating in the debate?

Hardly. But they should not be taken as a neutral source. That's what this discussion is about. If someone has an agenda, we should expect them to present facts in such a way as to favor their own conclusions and further their own agenda.

Quote:

Nor does the claim from another source that there is no agenda always mean that there is no agenda.

I've not made such a claim. But if you are to assert that they are biased or have an agenda then it is you who should demonstrate what that is.

Quote:

Whatever conclusions you object to. You must have some reason for thinking this group should not have a voice in the debate. You didn't specify so I have no idea why you arrived at that conclusion if you did.

When did I ever make any such claims? I think this group is not a trusted source for the claim that Factcheck.org is biased -- which is how you presented it.

Quote:

The recent polls would strongly suggest that the last election had little resemblance to what Americans were thinking.

Then what would you say happened?

Quote:

If it did, Obama wouldn't be sinking like a stone in his approval ratings and his agenda would be breezing through.

He's losing support, that's true. But in order to lose support, he would have had to have had it to begin with. What this means is that people who support his health care agenda are not happy with the fact that it has become such a muddled mess. No president's agenda "breez[es] through" unless he is riding high after a terrorist attack.

Quote:

MACs are in general agreemen, and are even getting support from many non-MACs now , that the American people was sold a bill of goods in the last election that has turned out to be far different from its advertising.

Glad to know you have your finger on the pulse of MACs and non-MACs. 3 out of 4 bridge players must agree...

2 Replies

@FreeDuck,

Quote:

No president's agenda "breez[es] through" unless he is riding high after a terrorist attack.

+5

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know