29
   

FINAL COUNTDOWN FOR USA ELECTION 2008

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 08:22 am
@Asherman,
Asherman wrote:

Let me make this so clear that even you might see it.

There is no such thing as an unbiased media.

Why should I keep my opinions to myself, when you obviously feel free to make outrageous statements? I certainly am partisan and have never claimed otherwise, as some have done.

"Regurgitator of recycled pap"? I don't suppose that is a complete lie, since my opinions are drawn from stuff that I've read and studied over a lifetime. But that isn't the intention of your comment, is it? I'm pretty sure that what you meant to imply is that I don't think for myself, but only parrot the Party line. You don't know that for a fact, but you make an insinuation with the intention of insulting and smearing me because I don't agree completely with your own set of narrow prejudices and beliefs. That's spin, too.


Ah, I see. The media is biased against Republicans. So when they point out that McCain is lying, people should ignore it, because the Liberal Media cannot be trusted. Right.

Ash, I accuse you of parroting the party line, because what you write is no different then the Republican party line.

As I wrote above, it seems presciently - you don't give a damn about McCain lying. You just don't care. Nobody could convince you that he is lying, for you are not a rational actor in this election. And this is a conscious choice on your part.

Cycloptichorn
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 08:29 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Interesting H2O. If Levin is reporting that accurately, you would think Charlie Gibson would be a bit more careful of his professional reputation maybe?

I thought the following to be really funny:

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb0912extra_cd.jpg


The comparison of how Gibson interviewed Obama and then Palin is startling.

Obama was treated with kid gloves and Palin was interrogated.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 10:00 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Obviously you don't read my posts.

Both Partyies tell untruths and spin. Both Parties and their partisans accuse negative "news"/reports/commentary as being the product of a biased media. Partisans of both Parties over generalize, blow stuff out of proportion, and act as if an unbiased media is both possible and exists.

In actual fact, all mass media is irrevocably biased, because they are organizations designed more for profit, or achieving a definable goal, than for delivering gold-edged facts. The "media" is made up of human beings, and everyone of them are biased in someway. The stories assigned and published by editors reflect their own agenda. Every word and sentence a reporter writes is colored by their own prejudices. Veteran news people know that finding and reporting "the truth" is a virtual impossibility, so the best of them do the best they can.

There is no single media in a pluralistic society, but many individual organizations competing for the attention of the largest market share they can get. If real news were the goal then its doubtful that the great majority of news stories would ever be published. The goal is delivery of an audience to those who pay the bills.

Who is that? Well, advertisers are the principle bank role and they only care about one thing and that is energizing consumers to buy their product. Advertisers care less about the content than in the size and demographics of the audience. Some media organizations are "owned" by a Partisan interest, but they are relatively rare. The best example might be Al Jazeera. It exists not to make a profit, but to advance the cause of the world's Islamic community and Movement. There is Voice of America, another non-profit media outlet that is intended to pierce the veil of censorship in dictatorships. Around the time when an American national political campaign is being waged, a number of media organizations increase. They generally claim to be unbiased and devoted entirely to providing the facts that main-stream organizations fail to pursue. They claim to be unaffiliated and unbiased, but the bills are paid quietly by the zealots of each of the Parties. Some really are secretly controlled by the campaign they favor, but others carefully disassociate themselves to preserve the illusion that they have no biases. BS.

Political news is vital to the extremists of all Parties, and all Parties/candidates cynically use the "news" to persuade and exhort support. The "news" is an inexpensive way of attacking and discrediting the opposition without the candidates being held accountable for uncivil behavior. "Leaks" and inside information gleaned from "opposition research" is secretly fed to editors and reporters whose biases are known. That's all that's necessary to give wings to new stories that often have little or no importance.

Alright, being a Conservative and a registered Republican my writing tends to agree with the conservative and republican points of view. If the GOP didn't pretty much reflect my opinions and views, then I wouldn't be a Republican. I'm biased in favor of the Party that most nearly agrees with my political philosophy, and that is the Federalism of the Founders written into the Constitution. I try to honestly express my opinions, and the reasons I hold them. I very seldom even cite any news story, political comment, or poll. Virtually nothing published during a heated political campaign can be relied upon, so I take none of it very seriously. What I look for, and draw my conclusions, views and opinions from are fundamental and less misleading evidence. The public record, especially that portion of the public record that covers what a candidate/party actually did when the Press wasn't looking is more reliable than the very best and "non-biased" news report. I look for character as revealed in the willingness of a person to do the "right thing" regardless of risk to their personal interests. The greater the risk, and the individual's way of dealing with it, is to me important. What did the individual do in difficult and stressful situations? Did they step forward and assume leadership and responsibility, did they cut and run, or did they hem and haw and eventually go along with the popular reaction of their group? Before the world was looking, did the individual exhibit a strong core of values that reflect the political philosophy that I believe is best for the nation, or were their values "soft", or were their values antithetical to those I personally hold dear?

These measures are almost entirely independent of any single report, and can be applied by anyone regardless of their political philosophy. Another person holding different political values than I do might quite legitimately come to a different set of conclusions, and opinions. Those who allow themselves to become emotionally entrapped by the foolishness surrounding political campaigns, the True Believers, may be the majority, but that has little to do with the fundamentals that, in my opinion, should fuel our national debate.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 10:09 am
This won't thrill some Republicans, I'm sure, but it does demonstrate that Obama has at least demonstrated some bipartisan willingness. But it is pretty clear that if we want a real bipartisan President, go with McCain:

Quote:
Records show McCain more bipartisan
Stephen Dinan
Monday, September 15, 2008

Sen. John McCain's record of working with Democrats easily outstrips Sen. Barack Obama's efforts with Republicans, according to an analysis by The Washington Times of their legislative records.

Whether looking at bills they have led on or bills they have signed onto, Mr. McCain has reached across the aisle far more frequently and with more members than Mr. Obama since the latter came to the Senate in 2005.

In fact, by several measures, Mr. McCain has been more likely to team up with Democrats than with members of his own party. Democrats made up 55 percent of his political partners over the last two Congresses, including on the tough issues of campaign finance and global warming.

For Mr. Obama, Republicans were only 13 percent of his co-sponsors during his time in the Senate, and he had his biggest bipartisan successes on noncontroversial measures, such as issuing a postage stamp in honor of civil rights icon Rosa Parks.

With calls for change in Washington dominating the campaign, both Mr. Obama, the Democrats' presidential nominee, and Mr. McCain, his Republican opponent, have claimed the mantle of bipartisanship.
But since 2005, Mr. McCain has led as chief sponsor of 82 bills, on which he had 120 Democratic co-sponsors out of 220 total, for an average of 55 percent. He worked with Democrats on 50 of his bills, and of those, 37 times Democrats outnumber Republicans as co-sponsors.

Mr. Obama, meanwhile, sponsored 120 bills, of which Republicans co-sponsored just 26, and on only five bills did Republicans outnumber Democrats. Mr. Obama gained 522 total Democratic co-sponsors but only 75 Republicans, for an average of 13 percent of his co-sponsors.

An Obama campaign spokesman declined to comment on The Times analysis.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/15/records-show-mccain-more-bipartisan/
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 11:24 am
@Foxfyre,
It demonstrates selective use of stats.

A minority party will need to work more with the majority to pass legislation.

I wonder what McCain's stats for cosponsors were when he was in the majority.... I'll bet they were much lower for 2 reasons.
1. There is not as much need to get opposition party sponsors since your party has a majority
2. The simple math is that the majority party has MORE members of Congress so a larger group that can co sponsor.
Foxfyre
 
  3  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 11:25 am
@Foxfyre,
SEVEN WEEKS TO GO

Does anybody get a clear sense of who is most likely to win in November yet? Or is it too close to call?
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 11:31 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

It demonstrates selective use of stats.

A minority party will need to work more with the majority to pass legislation.

I wonder what McCain's stats for cosponsors were when he was in the majority.... I'll bet they were much lower for 2 reasons.
1. There is not as much need to get opposition party sponsors since your party has a majority
2. The simple math is that the majority party has MORE members of Congress so a larger group that can co sponsor.


That's beside the point. A President Obama with a Democrat majority in Congress would have no need to reach across the aisle at all. He says he will. The proof is doing what you say you will do when you don't have to do it. In 2005 there was a GOP majority in Congress. How many of those dozen or so bipartisan initiatives Obama claims were accomplished then? How many since when January 2006 when the Democrats took over? McCain has a pretty good track record of bipartisanship when there was a GOP majority and Democrat majority.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 11:33 am
@Foxfyre,
Selective use of stats is beside the point?

Selective use of stats doesn't show anything other than selective use of stats. You can't take anything from it other than the stat user is trying overly hard to prove a point.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 11:35 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

SEVEN WEEKS TO GO

Does anybody get a clear sense of who is most likely to win in November yet? Or is it too close to call?


I don't know who is going to win, but I would note that even now, when McCain is polling higher then he has at any point for months, he still isn't winning more electoral votes then Obama is. Is this the best they can do? If so, the situation still looks good for a Dem victory this Fall.

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 11:35 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

SEVEN WEEKS TO GO

Does anybody get a clear sense of who is most likely to win in November yet? Or is it too close to call?


And again. Would appreciate if everybody would chime in here for a quick straw poll.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 11:42 am
@Foxfyre,
Palin's celebrity is fading and will be gone as voters get over the shock and awe.

This is going to come down to the debates. Change means a new party in charge so as long as Obama comes across as Presidential in the debates he will be the next President.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 11:47 am
@parados,

WRONG!

The groundswell of support for McCain & Palin is just starting, it is Obama that is fading away.
McCain is now leading or gaining ground in ALL key battleground states. Omama continues to lose ground.


0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 11:47 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Opinions from a loser are of no interest to objective observers.
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 11:48 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Opinions from a loser like you are of no interest to objective observers.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  3  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 11:55 am
@Foxfyre,
SEVEN WEEKS TO GO

Thanks to those who have responded. I'm taking notes (minus ad hominems--let's keep those to a minimum please) and will post results when several have chimed in.

Again the question:

Does anybody get a clear sense of who is most likely to win in November yet? Or is it too close to call?
.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 11:58 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:



Does anybody get a clear sense of who is most likely to win in November yet? Or is it too close to call?
.



Momentum is currently on the side of McCain & Palin.
The real debates should enhance the GOP momentum.
It's going to be close, but I think McCain will achieve a come from behind victory.

0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 12:05 pm
@Foxfyre,
Unless the voting maching functions properly and unless those citizens below 30 years cross the street and cast the votes Obama will face a decent defeat like al Gore.
My name is Rama
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 12:07 pm


Even Mitt Romney has the intellectual honesty to point out that McCain is lying. Should Republicans listen to him, Ash and Fox, or is he just another member of the 'liberal media?'

Cycloptichorn
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 12:11 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
He said that when he was running against McCain and not about McCain's campaign against Obama.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  5  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 12:12 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Ash and Fox have both freely admitted that some McCain ads have been over the top and less than honest as have some Obama ads. Perhaps you could acknowledge that we have both said that politicans lie and that includes McCain. And perhaps you could join the truth squad here and admit that your guy has been less than truthful in some of his campaign rhetoric also.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/17/2021 at 01:42:27