EvilMonkey

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Sep 16, 2008 -> 05:52 PM) it completely distorts the interview to do something like that. her point was that she doesn't think anyone on either ticket could be a CEO. NBC cut and pasted it to appear like she only thinks McCain and Palin couldn't be a CEO. there is no defense for this type of journalism Those extra 6 words take up valuable space! get with the program!

Palin Troopergate emails released. What is the MSNBC headline? Palin unlikely to meet 'Troopergate' investigator http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26727937/

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 16, 2008 -> 02:38 PM) . Right or wrong, Americans have the right to express their opinion. Yes they do, and since ours will not be the same on this, I will end it by eliminating some of your confusion caused by me. I misread the name and took Tarsa to be a woman, hence the 'she'. My turn to read, I guess.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 16, 2008 -> 01:52 PM) Zero doubt that both parties can take some pie to the face on the mess out there right now. Then, there is also even MORE that can be put on actors not even in the political system. Did I hear right this AM that the Feds were going to not allow the golden parachutes for the former CEO's of these two? That would be a good thing.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 16, 2008 -> 01:41 PM) Im not reading??? Here is what I said in my first post: You then respond: You then link a businessweek article that does not support that statement. To me it seemed like you were implying that the businessweek article was a story about Axelrod being behind the scenes posting on blogs and websites, when in reality the article talks about astroturfing in a completely different way. So basically you just wanted to agree with me? Because my first statement on this point was that this is going to give Republican's an opportunity to act as if this is some Obama scheme. And your last post says: Which is basically just a different way of saying "Republican" blogs. First, in regards to your last line, 'progressive' is just another way to say 'libtard'. Get over yourself. Now, as for the rest of it, we are at the mercy of the reporter here, aren't we? YOU took it upon yourself to just imagine her adding a whole descriptive sentance to her piece that would explain everything. But you have no way of knowing of that is true, you just want it to be. maybe she DID have that line in there, and it was selectively edited out due to space considerations. Maybe that little tagline at the end was put in on accident? or maybe on purpose by someone not bent to the left? If the story was meant to portray her as a 'former' republican who is now switching, I pointed to what seems to be an organized attempt at some REPUBLICAN blogs to add posts that favor the formay I posted. That is one of the many ways to astroturf. I also mentioned how these same blogs are suggesting that Axelrod was behind it, since his company does just that on every scale imaginable. Hence the link. Do a search. How many pro Obama and Anti-Palin and McCain blogs or websites can you find? TONS! Start 20, 30, 40 of these over a week, and leak a story to the media about the 'grassroots campaign for Obama exploding on the internet'. Start them off with some good Obama comments, a few digs and McCain, and a newsstory you now have. Make a few of the comments from 'former' Republicans, and you really have a story now. "But this has given Republican's an opportunity to act as if this is some sort of Obama scheme, when it very well could just be a man telling the truth.", you say. My reply, "Actually, I never said Obama did it. I said there are stories going around about Axelrod being behind a lot of astroturfing going on on blogs and websites. You think the Messiah is gonna get his own hands dirty? That's what he hired Alexrod for. And with the veracity of some of his supporters, all it takes is a little hint and the nutroots will take the ball and run". Now, if you want to take 'Obama scheme' and have that mean 'a scheme by Obama supporters, official and/or unofficial', then sure, I'll agree with you on that one. I don't think anyone believes that Obama thought that up while getting a pedicure one day

Have a listen. 'Progressive' radio Pacifica Radio interviews former Democratic Senator Gravel, trying to get him to dish bad on Palin. He says nothing but good things about her. The hosts keep trying to shut him up, and he says to let him finish, and then does. The hosts just seem to get madder and madder that he isn't agreeing with their criticisms of her and defensive of their own opinions as he challenges them a bit. I think some booker is going to get a smackdown after that.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 16, 2008 -> 01:11 PM) I see nothing in that businessweek article that suggests Axelrod has hired people to post fake things on websites... The article mentions ads on tv, I really do not see any connection besides the fact that Axelrod has run ads on tv that used: So is the argument that because Axelrod set up front organizations for public-issue ads that Obama now must be using "fronts" for hundreds to thousands of posters on the internet to parade as fake republicans? One of them (the fronts for ads) is a sophisticated operation that requires millions of dollars. The other (posting anonymous messages on an internet board) could be run by myself out of my apartment. The connection is illusory at best. It would be like saying McCain is a Republican, Nixon was a Republican, McCain must be up to something like Watergate. Again, you are not reading. I said there are conservative blogs suggesting Alexrod was seeding the comments, and that Axelrod is known for astroturfing, which includes seeding the sites with comments that go your way.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 16, 2008 -> 01:04 PM) If you wanna play with words, that last phrase is most damning. "We will never put you in this position again," sounds like a confession that he put them in this position. Doesn't it? "We", as in the government, which he, and Obama and Biden are all a part of. But you knew that.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 16, 2008 -> 12:48 PM) Haha Alpha. That was pretty good. Thanks. I dedicate that one to my dear friend Tex.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 16, 2008 -> 12:37 PM) The more I read about it the less I think its actually anything more than poor word choice to begin the statement. I believe that Mr. Tarsa intended to say that: "I have been a life long Republican up until 2000." I think thats why he states that he was a McCain supporter in 2000, and not a Republican or W supporter in 2000. It seems pretty odd that some one who is the Chairman of the Democratic Party would try and hood wink the readers when in a small community like Lebanon he is probably pretty widely known. But this has given Republican's an opportunity to act as if this is some sort of Obama scheme, when it very well could just be a man telling the truth. It would turn out really bad for Republicans if Mr. Tarsa has a Republican voting record (I cant pull that information if anyone perhaps is a law school student with LexisNexis I believe that you would have access to voter records database and could find out prior to the year 2000 what Tarsa was registered as.) The reality of the situation is that I dont think either side should be to quick to jump on these things. If Tarsa turns out to be telling the truth, a lot of people are going to look pretty silly. On the other hand if Tarsa was lying just to try and influence people, then he is getting all the attention that it deserves. One thing I havent seen mentioned is why did the liberal news reveal this? I thought that newspapers were controlled by the left, so why would they post the part about him being on the Democratic Committee? I guess maybe the media isnt as biased as the right likes to believe. {Edit} Points up, as you can see its already happening. Obama is being blamed for the actions of others when there is no proof. Even ip logs popping up Chicago dont prove anything. For all people know its just people in Chicago doing shady things that have no connection to the Obama campaign. Would it be fair to blame Pods personall for getting elected to the All-Star game because a bunch of people in Chicago voted thousands of times? Once again, unless you have actual proof some of these arguments are pretty strained. Actually, I never said Obama did it. I said there are stories going around about Axelrod being behind a lot of astroturfing going on on blogs and websites. You think the Messiah is gonna get his own hands dirty? That's what he hired Alexrod for. And with the veracity of some of his supporters, all it takes is a little hint and the nutroots will take the ball and run. http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflas...0314_121054.htm

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 16, 2008 -> 12:04 PM) Republician policies, huh? I notice a bipartisian effort on this one, including some very key names such as Chuck Shumer, Chris Dodd, and one VP candidate from the lower 48. http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-t...2008-09-16.html http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...Tk5ZDYyNGJhZjE= That has too many words to fit on the pages of the NY Times. Have top pare that down a bit. Let's see.... There. Now it fits the space.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 16, 2008 -> 12:10 PM) http://www.ldnews.com/letterseditor/ci_10436829 There are a bunch of stories going around the conservative blogs that Axelrod is behind all this astroturfing. Posts pop up from 'jim', or 'mary' that all follow the same script. And when the bloggers track down the IP's of some of the various posters, they often popo us with multiple names on the same IP, or with and IP in Chicago, when they represented themselves as 'a concerned Wasilla resident'. 1. The Pledge: I'm a conservative/I'm a Christian/I'm a conservative Christian 2. The Turn: My heart is with you guys, really... but I have these concerns... 3. The Prestige: I hear all these great things about Obama and/or did you hear this horrible stuff about Palin?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 15, 2008 -> 06:25 PM) Actually, I'm surprised you could tell I was black by the phone, if that's how you knew. I sound like a suburban white boy when I talk. They used to make fun of me in high school but I'm pretty sure I make more money than any of them now. Ability to speak proper English comes in handy during a job interview. I actually don't completely disagree with you, because all along I've believed that the best thing for Obama is to not acknowledge his race at all except when it's completely obvious. I didn't like when he said the "oh by the way did I mention he was black" even though I knew where he was going with it, and I'm disappointed in Biden brought it up at all. He's trying to drum up the black turnout, but he doesn't really need to do that, black people (the ones that vote Democrat anyway) are ecstatic as it is. But as far as what he actually said, the fact that he pointed out, I don't see any harm in that because it's the truth. I got it a little from the phone, but I remember you saying it somewhere else in here before.

So NSS would have me believe that Joe was speaking in North Carolina, an important state for Obama, and he wasn't "endorsing Obama in any way'? That in itself is ludicrous. I guess Joe was just speaking to hear himself talk? (actually, that IS a possibility, but not likely) And here is where the writer of this piece does the readers a disservice. There is information missing. Look at these lines together: I am not saying that Joe says 'Vote Obama, just because he is black'. But by bringing that up as another reason to vot efor him is wrong. He is in effect saying, 'vote Obama because policy A, policy B, and because it would be a transofrmative event (because he is black).' Lost, I know you are black. I am slightly suprised you couldn't tell I was white from our phone conversation! I sometimes slip into my country accent at wierd times. I bring up race because I, as a person that usually votes Republican, am constantly being accused of being a racist or stupid by leftwing pundits, commentators and the like because i dare to question Obama's stance on anything. Both you and NSS are two people on the other side of the political aisle whose posts i generally respect. But if you guys don't see that Biden is essentially saying yeah, it's ok, vote for Obama because he is black, then on that issue i am done. Maybe I should bring up in that same article how Joe says Obama will appoint judges to ensure women get equa, pay for equal work? How's he going to do that when he doesn't even pay his women staffers the same as his male ones? http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/3787...ckonline12.html

I thought it was the Republicans who were the ones always bringing up race? It is just as bad to suggest that it is better to vote FOR someone because they are black as it is to suggest you vote AGAINST someone because they are black. And yes, you can substitute 'woman' for 'black'. He's saing 'Vote for Obama for A, B, C & D. Oh, and also because it would be a travsformative event. Because, you know, he's black! Bonus!'

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 15, 2008 -> 04:36 PM) It sure would be sad... if that's what he said. He of course said nothing of the like. What else does that mean? Oh wait, let me get my hip-waders on, it might get pretty deep.

Joe Biden says to vote for Obama because he's black. How sad. http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll...ID=200880914028

QUOTE (Texsox @ Sep 15, 2008 -> 01:50 PM) Alpha allow me an example of why you will always see bias. Imagine a press conference where someone covers twenty topics. The transcript will fill four pages. The story is allotted one. If the reporter tries to briefly capture all twenty, you will find a missing fact and show bias. If he chooses ten, you will look over the omitted topics and show bias. Doesn't matter if the reporter picked the ten most important or popular stories, you will find bias. If the reporter picked five positive and five negative you will point to a more important topic that was positive for the Republican and a negative topic and show bias. As soon as a reporter pares down the story, you have "proof". So you win. I bow to your irrefutable proof and lay down my pen It's one thing to edit out some questions to fit time/space. When you edit the given answers so as to change the meaning of the answer, that is wrong.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Sep 15, 2008 -> 11:59 AM) No surprise here: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008809140383 Be careful workers of Clerk's office, I smell a racism defense. I posted about that in another thread. With as many times as ACORN has been busted for fradulent voter registrations, how is it that they STILL get government contracts and that nobody from the company is in jail? I guess it pays to have friends in high places.

Tex, it isn't balance in what is a fair subject that I write about, it is balance in the way comparable subjects are reported. Simply because they identify Larry Craig as a R in the first sentance doesn't mean he isn't a scumbag, he is. Saying "Oh, we wrote 3 positive stories about the Messiah this week, we need to go find somethign good to say about McCain" is not what it is about either. But you know that. It is not about balancing the NUMBER of stories about both sides, its about putting the information out there for the reader to be informed. If you only give them half the facts, or make up s*** to put in the story, you are not doing your job. It is all about spin, and how you shape the story for the reader. I post a concrete example where the interview was chopped up to misrepresent the interviewee, and you respond by saying I am calling for McCarty-style investigations into the media. I posted how I saw John Roberts interviewing Paul Begala on CNN, and he said 'How should "we" respond to Republican attacks on Democrats'. But that was ignored by you, your next reply instead referring to my disgust at our senators getting paid while not working. The lack or addition of a D or an R doesn't make ne belive the story any more or less. At least in politics, I don't believe much of what is written on either side, until I can conform it somehow.

It was fun to watch 100 MPH fastballs go whizzing by the opposing batters, but even more fun to just get outs. Thornton is great in the 7th or 8th inning role. He has the stuff to be a closer, but every closer says it is all a mental thing.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 15, 2008 -> 10:18 AM) He's not really negotiating (though the author tried his best to make it seem like he did), he didn't reach any deal. There is nothing wrong with a US Senator traveling abroad and having talks with foreign leaders though. Especially considering Congress wants in on this (and rightly so). You CAN negotiate without reaching a deal. And it certainly seems like he WAS trying to reach a deal. Again, just going by what was written. He seemed like he was trying to convince him to do something that he favored, and was told no. IS that now just called 'asking'? And there IS something wrong with it, if that person has a different message than the one of his government. And like it or not, Bush's message is the 'official' one for now.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 15, 2008 -> 09:58 AM) So the links that you post are both kind of confirming my theory. If Iraq wants to have international peacekeeping forces in the country to protect its interests, Obama would have suggested asking for an extension of the UN mandate. This gives the US the flexibility to leave at its own pace while still maintaining a military presence that can help keep the peace in Iraq. I think there's a very honest argument that can be made that the US shouldn't have its military capability held hostage to how effective the Iraqi government is. Having an internationalization of the military presence can give the US that flexibility while aiding Iraq's stability. You are missing a key point in all this. WHY is Obama negotiating with a foreign leader? That is really above his pay grade, at least for now. Isn't that against the law? I thik the Logan Act prohibits unauthorized individuals from negotiating with foreign governments.

Obama and Zebari had a differing of opinions once before. Maybe something was lost in the translation. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...-and-iraqi.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8061702034.html