:bravo: That's awesome. Trying to show Obama is honest by linking to a list that only shows the promises he kept and not the ones he didn't. What did I just say/what is this thread about? Choosing to show only one side is one of the key problem we're discussing! On purpose, no less! :bravo: Anyway, probably the key broken promise of Obama's that helped swing his popularity and honesty ratings in the past couple of months is his promise - which was absurd when he made it, but the liberal medial let it go - that Obamacare would allow everyone to keep their doctors/plans if they wanted to. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-obama-says-what-hed-said-was-you-could-keep/ Check out the date in the link. That's not the date it was updated, it was the date it was posted. As if they never heard that promise before. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That one is one they can't ignore anymore, but still, it isn't listed in Obama's top 25 promises even though the other side of the coin that if you don't like your plan you'll have options for getting a new plan (which is a duh, since that was the pre-existing case) was. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/politifacts-top-promises/?page=2
I was only responding to the assertion that Obama was a liar who had not kept any promises. But yes, he has by no means accomplished what he promised he would advocate for. Actually I find it remarkable what he has accomplished and promises kept in spite of concerted effort to obstruct anything Obama proposed, even if the ideas were republican. I believe there was an occasion where a republican voted against a Bill which he himself had brought to the floor. The 2013 congress is now officially on record as having accomplished the smallest body of work in the history of the US. And Obama is to blame for this? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/gop-pledge-o-meter/
Here is an example. When Benghazi was a breaking news story, Mitt Romney accessed the situation and hit the nail on the head of a terrorist attack, even without the full access given to the office of the president. President Obama and Hilary inferred this was not due to terrorists but was caused by outrage to a book. The Romney assessment seemed like common sense seeing it was 911. The president was either clueless or lying, with either way not making him qualified for the job. It turned out to be lying to cover up a blunder. The media reaction was split down the middle, with the liberal media attacking Romney trying to humiliate him (attack the messenger of truth) while helping to firm up the lie, while the Conservative media attacked the president using the rules of journalism. Only one side was actually doing journalism while the other was providing propaganda and PR cover for the president. There was a pattern of lying beginning to show yet the liberal media will not investigate. It is not just liberal media bias, but journalistic malpractice since they often engage in the deception instead of doing their jobs as objective reporters. Even now there has been no justice for those killed and the liberal media still provides cover. This is a pattern in a nut shell. The low information liberal voter who watches liberal news will only see what they are allowed to see. Sometimes is it not just leaving out facts but helping the lie and attacking truth.
Oy, the Benghazi thing irked me. Im not sure which was worse, the idiocy of the claim, the fact that liberals bought it so easily or how vigorously the media defended Obama, going so far as to sabotage the Presidential debate discussion of it!
I'll save time and refer to posts # 71 and #72 (by others), to which I have little to add. Moreover, the facts I provided in the list of promises kept are not false. and your reply, But I am not wrong, these were promises kept, in spite of your protestations, and should be considered. You seem to ignore their existence and value to society altogether. Bill Maher has a few observations. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAc6xzo8_Aw and from Upworthy: http://www.upworthy.com/they-did-it...-president-combined-82-times-to-obama-alone-6
If MSNBC is a mirror of Fox, then point to MSNBC's blatant lies? You cannot, because MSNBC is not a mirror of Fox. MSNBC is not defunct. It is beating CNN in the most recent ratings. And unlike Fox, MSNBC has a mixture of conservative and liberal programing (e.g. Morning Joe & The Rachel Maddow Show). I sometimes listen to Fox just to see what they are up to. Some things -most things- are blatantly false. But others, especially new stories, it’s much more difficult to weed out Fox’s distortions and lies (e.g. the faux IRS scandal, the faux Benghazi scandal, etc.). We only find out later the truth of the matter from other sources. You will never get the truth listening to Fox News. So why bother listening to Fox at all? It is a waste of time if your intention is to learn something of value. News and facts are not conservative or liberal, they are facts and that is how I expect my news. And that is why I am a big proponent of going back to The Fairness Doctrine.
Well unfortunately for you and those like you, nonpartisanship does exist. Unfortunately it only exists outside of your world of so called conservatism. We saw how well your invented conservative polling did last year when you guys didn’t like the “liberal polling” and invented your own polling showing the results you folks wanted (i.e. Romney wins). Oops, Romney lost. It looks like your conservative dismissal of reality as biased smacked you folks in the face yet again. You conservatives go to great lengths to dismiss individuals and facts with messages and facts which run counter to your version of conservative dogma by calling them partisan or liberal. And we also have seen the results when reality eventually catches up with conservative delusion (e.g. The Great Recession) as it inevitably does. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/opinion/kristof-suffocating-echo-chamber.html?_r=0 Well here is the thing, your so called “liberals” don’t have to do anything to discredit Fox News and conservative media, Fox does that every day when they broadcast blatant lies and misinformation. If you feel Fox has been unfairly targeted, prove it. But here is the bottom line, you cannot. Those sites are pro truth, if that makes them anti-Fox whose fault it that? Unfortunately in your world the truth tellers are at fault and not the liars. Ah no, lies should not beget more lies. What you are arguing for here is this “conservative” notion of a false equivalence -to put my hand on the scale to make sure there is balance when clearly there is none. You have been repeatedly challenged and repeated failed to produce any evidence of false reporting in the so called “liberal” press. You have yet to produce even one instance. CBS in their "60 Minutes" program recently broadcast a Benghazi story that later proved to be false and CBS should have known it to be false before the broadcast. The producer was suspended pending investigation. Dan Rather and his producers were dismissed a few years ago for broadcasting a story that they could not definitively prove. Now compare that to a recent Hannity show on Fox where Hannity knowingly had families on to tell false stories about Obamacare. No investigation, no reprimand, no dismissal, it’s just business as usual at Fox News. To say as you are that there is some sort of equivalence where none exists is just another lie. As for Politicfact, Politifact bends over backwards to not rate something as a lie. That is why they have so many shades of lies with their highest ranking being “pants on fire”. If you want to portray yourself as nonbiased, you wouldn’t be discounting real facts and real credible individuals. You would not be calling people names in order to avoid unpleasant facts and realities and you wouldn’t be insisting on using information that doesn’t exist (i.e. false equivalence). If Fox News and conservative talk radio hadn’t been so busy demagoging Obamacare with claims of death panels, death squads, fascism, government takeover, etc. maybe we could have had a better discussion of Obamacare. But that didn’t happen, did it? And from what I can gather, what Obama said about Obamcare was largely true. It was only false for a small number of people who purchased subpar policies after the passage of Obamacare and insurance companies should have made that fact known to purchasers when they purchased the subpar insurance. So the bottom line is that what Obama said was true for about 99.99% of the population.
To be more clear, then: Above you have listed reasons why you think the multiple polls that support the idea that FOX News viewers are less informed than viewers of most other networks are not valid. You have many excuses as to why such polls are biased, and have concluded that the truth is closer to what you want to believe than what the polls represent. In 2012 conservatives listed reasons why they thought the multiple polls that showed Obama leading were invalid. They had many excuses as to why such polls were biased, and concluded that the truth was closer to what they wanted to believe than what the polls represented. In 2012, of course, they learned they were wrong. Everybody makes mistakes. The important question - can you learn from them?
Wow, so some people were wrong about polls being wrong a couple of years ago, therefore I must be wrong about these being wrong? That's quite a stretch! Tell me: are polls ever wrong? Either way, this is a very convenient way to avoid dealing with the actual arguments I made.
LOL, yeah wow. It's a fact that repeated non-partisan academic polling have found Fox viewers to be less well informed than even people who watch no news at all. And you don't think that is a problem? Here is the problem, you have been repeatedly challenged to support your allegations. It's your job to support them, not ours. Dude, it's time to prove your claims. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! PS Below is an article by Joe Scarborough, former Republican Congressman http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/tearing-down-the-conservative-echo-chamber-87792.html If there are any remaining honest and smart Republicans left besides Scarborough, they should be listening. For the record, I don't agree with Scarborough on much. He, like many of his Republican fellows, operate in an alternative world where facts and rational thought are optional most of the time. But he is correct on this issue.
Joe, I supported my claims in some pretty significant detail. I invite you and billvon to actually try to discuss what I've said rather than just dismissing it. Just a few little things: Joe, I'm not claiming "blatant lies" from MSNBC or Fox, so that's not something I need nor want to prove. However, their intent to be a direct competitor to Fox, but with a liberal spin can be found in their advertising and admitted by MSNBC execs: And Bill Clinton... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC And I'm not a follower of MSNBC, so their branding issues had me a little confused - no, they aren't defunct, just rebranded: I am most certainly not a namecaller, joe. But you won't find me responding much to your posts because they tend to be off-the deep end, dismissive or just non sequitur rants that don't contain anything relevant to respond to. For example, there was a question in that post you responded to, but you didn't answer it. So just for the record - if you see me not answering a post of yours, it isn't because I'm missing your posts, I'm just ignoring them. If you post something discussion-worthy, I'll respond, but you don't very often.
No. You said you didn't see any similarity between two very similar situations. I pointed out the reasons they are similar. In both cases, the polls were clear. In both cases, conservatives ignored them because they preferred to believe something else that better fit their politics. In both cases they applied an "offset" to make the polls appear more to their liking. You can say "no, THIS TIME things are different" - but if you see no similarity at all between the two, then you are either being very intentionally obtuse or are not intelligent enough to grasp similarities. Based on your posting history I suspect it is the former. Of course. A poll or two might be inaccurate. The odds of half a dozen all being wrong? Very, very long - as we have seen history demonstrate. Why do conservatives do this knee-jerk defense of FOX News, anyway? They've admitted to the bias. Murdoch admitted they tried to shape world perception of the war in Iraq to help with Bush's re-election. A FOX producer said this: "The roots of Fox News Channel's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel's daytime programming, The Memo is the Bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it." There's really no question that they try to shape the news to help their political allies and harm their political rivals. That doesn't mean they are criminals or anything. The Colbert Report is a blatantly (and intentionally) biased conservative comedy show who exaggerates right wing talking points; the Daily Show is a left wing comedy show. Both get good ratings and people enjoy watching them. Why not just take FOX for what it is, rather than trying to pretend it's unbiased factual reporting?
Not really, no. A "who will you vote for" question is pretty straightforward and can't be biased. The only real difficulty is in trying to achieve a high enough precision to call a close race. That's not what the issues are here. Frankly, I agree that the polls are clear - they just don't say what liberals want them to say. I'm not ignoring the polls at all. I worked hard on posts analyzing the results. I think the results show something liberals don't want to see. It would have been nice if you had kept discussing the polls instead of launching into a non sequitur about something that happened years ago and didn't involve me! I did no such thing in either case. Lets hold that thought for a while. Next question: can a poll - any poll - have a political bias - liberal or conservative? I've wondered the same about liberals. Fox is biased and everyone knows it, so why the need to dedicate websites to slamming it? Wait, are you still responding to me here? You must have misread, because I've never claimed any such thing. You and joe may focus on one side, but I don't. I'm quite aware that Fox is biased and have been quite open in acknowledging it. That isn't what this is about.
We know that most of Fox News and their endorsements come from Frank Luntz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz And this is why Bill Maher talks about the FN Bubble, where reality is a kind of magical wonderland, not unlike Oz. Bill Maher calls it like it is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmsj59FrhFw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcJohfS4vTQ&list=PL4D29DD2390F494BA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm5IEWotkfE&list=PL4D29DD2390F494BA
Oh, and just what polls would those be exactly, the ones showing Republicans with a single digit approval? You are ignoring a lot more than just polling. Many things are possible, but the facts are the multiple nonpartisan academic polling has repeatedly shown Fox viewers to be more misinformed than folks who view no news at all. You are trying to obfuscate. This is one of those many facts you like to ignore. Do you really believe that crap? It’s funny to see conservatives play the victim card after slamming so called liberals for decades with the accusation. Do you really think all those ditto heads out there think Fox is biased? Most of them can’t even see their own biases. And just who is devoting websites to slamming Fox, just where are those websites? Just because a web site publishes the truth, it doesn’t mean they are devoted to slamming Fox News. It just means they are being honest. LOL, now that is funny. You have been defending Fox, invoking the false equivalence for several days now and ignoring legitimate polling results in order to support Fox. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the academic studies have found Fox viewers to be consistently the most misinformed. Fox goes way beyond partisan bias. It is one thing to be biased, it is quite another to invent news and publish fiction (e.g. death panels) and claim it to be true as Fox does.
Joe, if you have any interest in the actual topic I was discussing, please answer the question I asked in my previous post (the one after the one you quoted but didn't really respond to).
