@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Since he was appointed to head CAC, that pretty well establishes him as 'one of their own'.
He was not appointed by the Annenberg Foundation so, no, it doesn't.
Yes it does. The Foundation itself does not appoint any heads but it does approve that the baord of directors and projects meet their criteria. We know what William Ayers founded the CAC and he received the initial funding from the Foundation. There is still some question just how an inexperienced lawyer with little or no administrative experience was chosen to head it up.
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NTM4ZmU1NGFkODJlMjhmYjkxMjg4Y2Q0NTVlYjAzMmY=
Quote: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.
Indeed. I look forward to reading yours.[/quote]
I've already given my analysis which prompted this whole line of discussion. Maybe if you gave yours, we would see how mine was apparently wanting?
Quote:Quote:
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.
If there is no possible objective writer, how does their exist an objective reader?
I didn't say there was no possible objective writer if you mean by 'objective' that no personal bias is included. I spent quite a few years being trained in doing just that kind of writing and there are a few of us left. You don't find it in the MSM these days though, and no, I am not suggesting that I consistently write objectively here.
I just said that Snopes and Factcheck.org are not always entirely objective in their conclusions.
Quote:Quote:
So if somebody has an agenda, this automatically disqualifies them from participating in the debate?
Quote: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?
And here the discussion became too convoluted to follow. So I will simply say again. It is my opinion that Factcheck.org is subject to bias as is any other group, and it is as legitimate to question Factcheck.org as it is to question facts stated by any other group including the Patients' Right group.
Quote:Quote:
I think the American people were thoroughly misled and lied to.
That's never happened before.
Perhaps, but I've never in my lifetime seen a President who changed his story as seamlessly as this President does and who governs as differently from his campaign rhetoric as this President governs. It would be bad enough if he was just inexperienced, naive, and gullible and really believed governing would be as easy as campaigning. But I won't forgive being played for an inexperienced, naive, and gullible fool by that same person.
Quote:Quote:
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.
Interesting... so you posit that the people who now believe that Obama is proposing Marxist-tinged socialism were once people who believed he was the messiah? You think these were Obama voters, then?
I certainly think the 52% of voters who voted for Obama voters were Obama voters, yes. Based on the freefall in his approval ratings, I would guess that substantially less than 52% of those same voters would vote for him again if they had a second chance.
torches. pitchforks. ropes...
