Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

The left has taken over the Politics and Current Event Board

Posters...321, TX, John258, runner50, Mandm, oldscout66 and others on the left have taken over the P & C board and show they will do anyting to get others that do not agree with them off.

 

They own it...pushy people seem to get their way....attack, attack, bait, bait, iinsult, insult, make snide reamrk whatever they can do.  It seem to work as many have left the P & C board. 

1,978 Views
330
Report
1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION
Honored Social Butterfly


@corb0503 wrote:

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@KidBoy2 wrote:
What Obama said was that it was Congress job to approve his budget and that he would not discuss it unless they FIRST approved what he wanted. That's not negotiating.
__________________________________________________

Yes, Obama said he would not negotiate...and he wonders why things do not get done.

Why should Obama negotiate?  They wanted him to surrender, not compromise.


Because the president cannot make laws, cannot fund his agenda, cannot do anything without Congress.  Because every president before Obama understood that and negotiated and compromised to move the country forward.  Because he's the president, not the king.  And by the way, YOU don't know if they wanted him to "surrender" or what they wanted him to do.  You don't know because the only way to find out is to negotiate and King Obama thought he was better than every past president and that he shouldn't have to do that. 


If somebody following the news cannot determine what one party expects why do you claim to know exactly what Obama should have done?

View solution in original post

1,282 Views
60
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@cat2011 wrote:

Corb, you're doing a second-hand citation of Groseclose/Milyo, a very controversial study whose methodology has been criticized by other scholors.

 

One of the first problems with Groseclose/Milyo is that they purport to use the ratings of ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) to establish a median for the House. The actual ADA ratings for the House median was 50.1, representing the political position of the average American, but Groseclose/Milyo extrapolate that to 39, which heavily skews all media ratings to the left.

 

There are many, many problems with their scholarship, including their inexplicable weighting of a K Street address in their scores. One obvious problem is that they seem unfamiliar with the dozens of studies that have already been done on media bias. Another obvious problem is that they treat a newspaper citation of a technocratic expert as if the citation itself proved bias.

 

Here is a link to a scholarly analysis of the weaknesses in Groseclose/Milyo.

 

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/12/the_problems_wi.html

 


You never seem to get the point.  Instead you always just pick out some point to argue about.  As I originally said, there have been many studies done on this.  I picked the first one I came to.  Don't like it?  Fine, pick anyone you want.  It doesn't matter.  The point is that a fact doesn't change due to the source.  As I said in the post you responded to:

"...if it's wrong, it's wrong.  But just because it's from Fox doesn't make it wrong any more than something from Newsweek is wrong just because they about three time farther left of the middle that Fox is right of the middle."

 

As someone else said, it it's Tuesday and someone on Fox says it's Tuesday, it's still Tuesday.  That's the fact of the matter.  As I've said before, the problem I have is with people saying it's not Tuesday if they said it was on Fox.  That's NOT the fact of the matter.  That IS sheer ignorance.  It's what people say when they don't know what day it is but want to argue about it because they don't want it to be Tuesday, whether it is or not.  The intelligent people look at a calendar so they know what day it is.  They don't say "it must have come from Fox."   They say, yes, the calendar shows today is Tuesday or no, according to the calendar today is Wednesday.  See how that works.  The original source had absolutely nothing to do with it with determining what was said was fact or fiction.

Honored Social Butterfly

Corb, it's called a discussion.

 

You post a link to an article praising a study. I post a link to an article by another scholar debunking that study. Your next move would be to use your own experience with scholarly discourse to refute the second scholar's analysis. Academics do it all the time.

 

When scholars defend or refute studies, it's not the same thing as people saying that Fox can't be trusted.

 

I'm getting bored, corb. You seem to repeat your talking points over and over, but are unable to counter when someone challenges you. In the end, the discussion dies with you insulting the other poster.

 

 

 

0 Kudos
791 Views
6
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@corb0503 wrote:

@cat2011 wrote:

We weren't talking about Fox.

 

We were talking about a controversial study that you were citing to prove that the media is "liberal."

 

I posted a link to a scholar criticizing that study.

 

Do you understand why our exchange was not about sources but about scholarship?

 

 


Based on this post and the fact that you've misquoted me so many times, I can't help but wonder, do you read what you're responding to?  "We weren't talking about Fox?"  That's funny, here are the original posts that started this exchange.  And every exchange has been in regard to Fox and facts until I posted a reference to make a point.  And now you say we're talking about "scholarship?"  Get a grip.

 

 

@corb0503 wrote:

@cat2011 wrote:

This is a nonsensical argument. Fox isn't in the news business. It's in the opinion business. I'm sure Fox can figure out when it's Tuesday--LOL!

 

Fox is the only station to fight a lawsuit to establish its constitutional right to air falsehoods. Why do you think they wanted to establish that principle? There have also been several studies establishing that Fox viewers are more likely to be misinformed than any other segment of the population, including those who don't follow the news.

 

So there will always be a problem with using Fox as a source. It's not a credible source, by its     own in-court admission. If you want to establish a fact, use another source.

 

The problem is not using Fox as a source.  The problem is that 90% of the morons on the left think that if they say "it must have come from Fox" it proves it's a lie.  And I say morons because saying that doesn't prove something isn't true.  It only proves that the people saying it aren't bright enough to know that it doesn't prove anything.


Long rant from the mirror.

Recognized Social Butterfly


@john258 wrote:

 


Long rant from the mirror.


You are beginning to fascinate me, John.  You just can't resist going around looking for what I post and then making a snide remark about it.  And even though I ignore you, you keep on until I finally retaliate.  Then, when I do, you seem upset.  I'm really curious:

 

1.  Do you even realize that almost every one of your posts contains at least one insulting sentence that is a violation of the TOS?

 

2.  If you don't realize that, I understand.  But if you do, why in the world would you keep doing something that in the end appears to always irratate you?  It reminds me of Einstein.  Suuposedly he said the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.  Do you think if you keep following me around making snide remarks that sooner or later I'm not going to say something back to you?

 

3.  A lot of people here think it's okay to insult people, but not okay if someone insults them back.  Is that your opinion?

 

John, I'm not trying to insult you here.  I'm just REALLY curious.  Those are the only three reasons I can think of for what you do.  If there is some other reason, I would love to hear that also.

Honored Social Butterfly


@corb0503 wrote:

@john258 wrote:

 


Long rant from the mirror.


You are beginning to fascinate me, John.  You just can't resist going around looking for what I post and then making a snide remark about it.  And even though I ignore you, you keep on until I finally retaliate.  Then, when I do, you seem upset.  I'm really curious:

 

1.  Do you even realize that almost every one of your posts contains at least one insulting sentence that is a violation of the TOS?

 

2.  If you don't realize that, I understand.  But if you do, why in the world would you keep doing something that in the end appears to always irratate you?  It reminds me of Einstein.  Suuposedly he said the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.  Do you think if you keep following me around making snide remarks that sooner or later I'm not going to say something back to you?

 

3.  A lot of people here think it's okay to insult people, but not okay if someone insults them back.  Is that your opinion?

 

John, I'm not trying to insult you here.  I'm just REALLY curious.  Those are the only three reasons I can think of for what you do.  If there is some other reason, I would love to hear that also.


Try 3 more.

Honored Social Butterfly

We weren't talking about Fox.

 

We were talking about a controversial study that you were citing to prove that the media is "liberal."

 

I posted a link to a scholar criticizing that study.

 

Do you understand why our exchange was not about sources but about scholarship?

 

 

0 Kudos
827 Views
1
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@cat2011 wrote:

We weren't talking about Fox.

 

We were talking about a controversial study that you were citing to prove that the media is "liberal."

 

I posted a link to a scholar criticizing that study.

 

Do you understand why our exchange was not about sources but about scholarship?

 

 


Based on this post and the fact that you've misquoted me so many times, I can't help but wonder, do you read what you're responding to?  "We weren't talking about Fox?"  That's funny, here are the original posts that started this exchange.  And every exchange has been in regard to Fox and facts until I posted a reference to make a point.  And now you say we're talking about "scholarship?"  Get a grip.

 

 

@corb0503 wrote:

@cat2011 wrote:

This is a nonsensical argument. Fox isn't in the news business. It's in the opinion business. I'm sure Fox can figure out when it's Tuesday--LOL!

 

Fox is the only station to fight a lawsuit to establish its constitutional right to air falsehoods. Why do you think they wanted to establish that principle? There have also been several studies establishing that Fox viewers are more likely to be misinformed than any other segment of the population, including those who don't follow the news.

 

So there will always be a problem with using Fox as a source. It's not a credible source, by its     own in-court admission. If you want to establish a fact, use another source.

 

The problem is not using Fox as a source.  The problem is that 90% of the morons on the left think that if they say "it must have come from Fox" it proves it's a lie.  And I say morons because saying that doesn't prove something isn't true.  It only proves that the people saying it aren't bright enough to know that it doesn't prove anything.

Honored Social Butterfly

You prove my point, corb. You prove my point.

0 Kudos
809 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@cat2011 wrote:

Corb, you're doing a second-hand citation of Groseclose/Milyo, a very controversial study whose methodology has been criticized by other scholors.

 

One of the first problems with Groseclose/Milyo is that they purport to use the ratings of ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) to establish a median for the House. The actual ADA ratings for the House median was 50.1, representing the political position of the average American, but Groseclose/Milyo extrapolate that to 39, which heavily skews all media ratings to the left.

 

There are many, many problems with their scholarship, including their inexplicable weighting of a K Street address in their scores. One obvious problem is that they seem unfamiliar with the dozens of studies that have already been done on media bias. Another obvious problem is that they treat a newspaper citation of a technocratic expert as if the citation itself proved bias.

 

Here is a link to a scholarly analysis of the weaknesses in Groseclose/Milyo.

 

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/12/the_problems_wi.html

 


Quick easy way to tell which media tries to control the people who watch it. Just follow the posts in here. If it is on FOX News or right wing web site you will see it in here the next day word for word from our far right posters. That does not happen with our non far right posters as they look at news reports, and then give some thought to them so they come with informed views. They can debate a subject, and always win over the far right people.

Recognized Social Butterfly


@john258 wrote:

Quick easy way to tell which media tries to control the people who watch it. Just follow the posts in here. If it is on FOX News or right wing web site you will see it in here the next day word for word from our far right posters. That does not happen with our non far right posters as they look at news reports, and then give some thought to them so they come with informed views. They can debate a subject, and always win over the far right people.


That's funny.  I see just the opposite.  And what I see most from the left is a lack of facts.  And a good example of that is how the left thinks they've disproved something by saying, "it must have come from Fox."  I never watched Fox until I kept seeing that said and decided to see for myself how bad it really was.  I don't watch it all the time, but I've never seen them say anything that wasn't true and I now understand why they are the highest rated cable news channel and why, according to polls, they are the most trusted news source.  Be that as it may, regardless of what they say, it doesn't make it true because they said it and it certainly does make it false because someone says, "it must have come from Fox."

Honored Social Butterfly

Cat posted...

The problem on the right is that you are unable to distinguish between propaganda like Fox and journalism.

___________________________________________________

And you that is as left as one can get can be a objective judge as what is propaganda?

The NY Times? Get real.
Honored Social Butterfly


@KidBoy2 wrote:
Cat posted...

The problem on the right is that you are unable to distinguish between propaganda like Fox and journalism.

___________________________________________________

And you that is as left as one can get can be a objective judge as what is propaganda?

The NY Times? Get real.

Kid - The Reich demands their "news" only tell them what they want to hear, which is why they all worship FAUX and talk radio.

Take Benghazi as an example: their Congresscritters wasted millions of dollars trying to find something to blame on Hillary, their propaganda ministry posted rumors and CT every day for MONTHS, and in the end, THEY FOUND NOTHING!!  But instead of accepting the fact they had been duped once again, they immediately launch CTs about how their CongressCritters had gone over to the other side and not investigated enough!

 

If you cannot see the monumental ignorance displayed by the Reichwing media in this entire debachal, you see nothing.

0 Kudos
370 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Kid - The Reich demands their "news" only tell them what they want to hear, which is why they all worship FAUX and talk radio.

 

scout - you are aware, are you not, that you are responding to a post about the NY Times, not Fox news or talk radio?

Honored Social Butterfly

What's the problem?   Got a knot in your panties because the position of "King of the Weeds" is something you might feel is being encroached upon?  

 

Chas - nope, just commenting on a poster's concern with the hand with which a poster writes.

 

It's the pettiness - not the panties.

Honored Social Butterfly

What about it, kidboy? You said that you oppose government shutdowns. Does that mean you would oppose a shutdown under any circumstances, including to defund the ACA?

 

Yes or no.

Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

Fox is the only station to fight a lawsuit to establish its constitutional right to air falsehoods

 

Interesting - that has suddenly popped up a lot lately in your bubble. I believe it refers to a case that occurred 13 years ago and the dailykos went bonkers about it five years ago.

 

Fox, like CNN, MSNBC etal. are news stations with a commentary element. For the most part they all delineate between the two. However, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC, Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times etc. do include a bias in their reporting - as does Fox. Fox tilts right, the rest tilt left. But, dailykos???

 

So, I hope that clears the air on that. We can get our info from any of them just so we remain cognisant of the bias.Example - we have been discussing the "we lost her emails" silliness from the IRS on these boards. Which news outlet is mentioning it?   

 

There have also been several studies - is a meaningless statement without some reference to the studies themselves.


For the past 20 years I don't know of any media outlet TV or Newspaper that are not biased in some manner or other. some are more extreme than others.
As a matter of fact. I really think that news today in the US has gone to the dogs.
They don't report news, they create sensationalism. I would more state that what we used to call Yellow journalism is what we see most.

Pity, we used to have good newscasters and journalists but they are all gone, Now what we have are the pundits that want to make a name for themselves, write books and create followers.
As I said, I seldom watch news in any of the regular channels, and for sometime now, CNN has really lost the respect that it used to command.
I try to see world news on BBCA or NPR  and my local channel for news in my area. The rest, I try to avoid like the plague.

no name
Honored Social Butterfly

Fox is the only station to fight a lawsuit to establish its constitutional right to air falsehoods.

________________________________________________

Lawsuit? Only station to air false hoods? And I thought I had hear it all.
0 Kudos
1,617 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Cat wrote:
Fox is the only station to fight a lawsuit to establish its constitutional right to air falsehoods.

________________________________________________
@KidBoy wrote:
Lawsuit? Only station to air false hoods? And I thought I had hear it all.

Now you misinterpret a statement that Cat made. Don't think we all don't see that.What you wrote doesn't resemble what Cat stated.

 

Cat asked you if you would be willing to shut down the government to defund the ACA. Would you?  Answer yes or no. Why is that so difficult for you?


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
0 Kudos
839 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

I didn't say that the GOP shut down the government to defund the ACA.

 

No, but others have alluded to it and you never offered a correction. So, what is one to think??

0 Kudos
1,610 Views
0
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@cat2011 wrote:

This is a nonsensical argument. Fox isn't in the news business. It's in the opinion business. I'm sure Fox can figure out when it's Tuesday--LOL!

 

Fox is the only station to fight a lawsuit to establish its constitutional right to air falsehoods. Why do you think they wanted to establish that principle? There have also been several studies establishing that Fox viewers are more likely to be misinformed than any other segment of the population, including those who don't follow the news.

 

So there will always be a problem with using Fox as a source. It's not a credible source, by its own in-court admission. If you want to establish a fact, use another source.

 


The problem is not using Fox as a source.  The porblem is that 90% of the morons on the left think that if they say "it must have come from Fox" it proves it's a lie.  And I say morons because saying that doesn't prove something isn't true.  It only proves that the people saying it aren't bright enough to know that it doesn't prove anything.

0 Kudos
4,013 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

No, corb, the problem is indeed using Fox News as your source. Nobody is going to believe your "facts" because you haven't supported them with a credible source. It doesn't mean that there isn't some remote possibility that what you post is true--it just means that you have to establish your proof.

 

Do you understand?

 

cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png