AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

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

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...

Somebody else dragged the Patients' Rights group into this discussion. I certainly didn't. I don't even recall exactly what context the Patients' Rights Group was cited in some previous post. I agree that the Patients' Rights Group is biased.

Take your time. I don't mind waiting while you put together what will certainly be a commendable defense of Factcheck.org.

Before you start you might want to spend some time here:
http://www.cprights.org/2009/05/who-fact-checks-factcheckorg.php

I take a much more pragmatic view of it that the people expected Obama to produce a magical miracle consistent with his messianic image.

You can live in that dream world if you wish. I take a much more pragmatic view of it that the people expected Obama to produce a magical miracle consistent with his messianic image. When he proved not up to the task, they are beginning to see the message as the Marxist-tinged socialism that it is and they can't buy into that. Every day, I think more are realizing that he isn't the messiah they were sold after all.

What? When did I do that? Somebody else dragged the Patients' Rights group into this discussion. I certainly didn't. I don't even recall exactly what context the Patients' Rights Group was cited in some previous post. I agree that the Patients' Rights Group is biased.

Since he was appointed to head CAC, that pretty well establishes him as 'one of their own'.

Quote:

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

No. It requires one to do their own scrutiny and analysis of that.

They nevertheless do slip in their own opinion just as Snopes occasionally does. I don't know if you have noticed, but you word things to favor your point of view. So do I. It's quite obvious for the objective viewer.

Quote:

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.

Bingo. Finally we agree on something. So perhaps you will agree that a site that favors your point of view is just as suspect as a site favoring my point of view or a site favoring patients' rights? And ALL are subject to scrutiny and challenge?

Quote:

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.

Demonstrate that there is a bias? I stated a group advocating patients' rights would have a bias favoring patients' rights. What other bias is necessary to know in order to evaluate that?

Quote:

I think this group is not a trusted source for the claim that Factcheck.org is biased -- which is how you presented it.

What? When did I do that? Somebody else dragged the Patients' Rights group into this discussion. I certainly didn't. I don't even recall exactly what context the Patients' Rights Group was cited in some previous post.

I think the American people were thoroughly misled and lied to.

You can live in that dream world if you wish. I take a much more pragmatic view of it that the people expected Obama to produce a magical miracle consistent with his messianic image. When he proved not up to the task, they are beginning to see the message as the Marxist-tinged socialism that it is and they can't buy into that. Every day, I think more are realizing that he isn't the messiah they were sold after all.

It happens so often, Foxie doesn't even know what she's writing from one post to the next.

JPB wrote:

ok, dtom --- I'm in. Let's create a new name for ourselves and start talking in code and use our new name as if it represented something real rather than a delusional new army.

I know, I know!!!! Let's be the Unaffiliated Independent Americans --- no... too many vowels. I'm open for suggestions.

Solutiontarians.

Once again, Daniel Henninger ("The revolt of the Masses," Sept. 3) succinctly captures what is wrong with politics in America today. The bureaucratariat are no longer listening to those they represent. In fact, their positions are out of touch, and divergent with a large majority of this country. Self-interest has replaced service. In addition, we the people no longer trust Congress with our hard-earned money sent in the form of taxes, because we see that it does nothing but encourage more wastful spending.

We all know what happened when Americans were confronted with taxation withour representation. What happens when we are presented with representation without representation?

Craig Heiser doesn't seem to understand how representative government works. When an election is held it doesn't mean a representative will be elected that agrees with him. Nor does it guarantee the representative will even agree with 50% of the voters on any issue. Anyone that thinks that needs to go back to Jr High and take a social studies class.

I'm not "mainstream America." I am a member of "mainstream America."