For GOP only

[mr_genius]

1.) http://www.verumserum.com/index.php?s=moto...p;Submit=Search

2.) http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/...1715527,00.html

WHAT MEDIA BIAS?

 

classic

 

Now just add some anonymous sources that claim GW Bush threw a banana peel at the officer that crashed, mix in another anonymous source that he was banging an intern in the limo, while throwing the banana peel.... then you have a New York Times story!

Edited February 25, 2008 by mr_genius

[southsider2k5]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/20...go-unchallenged

 

It's an extraordinarily clever claim. It gets your attention. It's misleading. And of course, Old Media isn't questioning it.

 

I am referring to the following statement made by Barack Obama in radio ads currently running in Ohio and Texas:

 

Some CEOs make more in 10 minutes than some American workers make in a year.

 

In the full context of the ad, I believe that what Obama wants listeners to take away is that "Quite a few CEOs typically, year after year, make more in 10 minutes than some American workers make in a year."

 

But let's limit things to the literal wording. Start with a full-time minimum-wage worker who earns (rounded) $12,000 annually ($5.85 per hour times 2,080 hours is a bit more than that). How much would a CEO have to make in a year to be earning over $12,000 every 10 minutes?

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

 

The answer: At least $187 million -- and, uh, "change":

 

 

So how many CEOs made that much in 2006? The answer in 2006, according to Forbes, was three:

 

 

How about 2005? Try one (per Forbes), maybe two (woopidoo.com has an additional name on its list):

 

 

One-year wonders are fine, but how many CEOs averaged $187.2 million or more in earnings over 5 years? As you can see above, the answer is "none in either year."

 

It's also worth noting that three of the four CEOs above (Jobs, Semel, and Diller) are in charge of high-tech businesses that are not exactly known for having high concentrations of minimum-wage workers.

 

If Obama's claim stands, it does so using the narrowest of definitions, and even then it only survives by the very thinnest of margins. An ordinary listener would clearly believe that Obama's ad refers to more than four people (or five, if you include the additional CEO listed at woopidoo.com) in a two-year period.

 

Obama's single-out of CEOs is also conveniently selective. If you wonder why he did not include certain entertainers in the list of those making more in 10 minutes than some workers, wonder no more:

 

 

Lee Cary at American Thinker adds this:

 

Sure, the gross disparity between CEO and average worker pay is a valid issue. And, for a relatively few CEOs and other mega-earners like Oprah Winfrey, top professional athletes, and major Hollywood movie stars, Obama's claim may be mathematically accurate. But as a blanket assertion, it's a level of derogatory rhetoric that only works when adulation kills critical thinking.

 

It's also appears to be a level of derogatory rhetoric Old Media doesn't mind letting go by unchallenged.

 

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

 

—Tom Blumer is a CPA based in Mason, Ohio and a contributing editor to NewsBusters

[kapkomet]

I think I need to start a PAC... concerned citizens against Obama.

 

AFTER 3-4-08. I want Clinton gone that bad.

 

[Cknolls]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M...TE2MTYxOWZkZjc=

 

 

Rest in peace!

[southsider2k5]

So first she wouldn't release her records from her time in the White House, dispite Hillary's assertation to say that time reflects on why she should be President, and now she won't release her tax records until she is safe from scrutiny in the primary. There is no one that can convince me that another Clinton Presidency would be any fundimentally different than the first Clinton or Bush time in office.

 

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080227/D8V2P8H01.html

 

CLEVELAND (AP) - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton says she won't release her tax returns until she has the Democratic presidential nomination in hand, and not before tax filing time comes in mid-April.

 

Clinton argued for openness Tuesday night during her latest debate with Democratic rival Barack Obama.

 

"I will release my tax returns," Clinton said during the debate. "I have consistently said I will do that once I become the nominee, or even earlier."

 

Pressed about the timing of releasing her tax returns, campaign aides were more reticent Wednesday, indicating that Clinton would not release the sensitive financial data during a hotly contested primary, but only at tax filing time.

 

(AP) Democratic presidential hopefuls Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., left, and Sen. Barack Obama,...

Full Image

"As is customary, as the Democratic nominee Senator Clinton will release her tax information in April at tax time," said spokesman Jay Carson.

 

It is conceivable that the Democratic contest would still be competitive on April 15, the tax filing deadline. Obama has built a slight edge in delegates earned during the primary season, and the two rivals are headed for big tests Tuesday in Ohio and Texas that could reshape the race.

 

Obama released his tax returns last year and in 2006.

 

Clinton's financial status has received increased attention since her husband left the White House. Former President Clinton has authored best-selling books - as has she - and he has become a highly paid member of the lecture circuit. That's left them comfortably fixed, a financial status which Clinton often refers to on the campaign trail.

 

During the latest campaign debate, Clinton bragged about her financial independence, saying her campaign is financed by the thousands of small donors who back her effort.

 

"The American people who support me are bankrolling this campaign," said Clinton, who was campaigning Wednesday in Ohio.

[Wise Master Buehrle]

Vote Ron Paul. He is the only honest candidate!

[southsider2k5]

Vote Ron Paul. He is the only honest candidate!

 

I'll be honest, the big thing I have learned about Ron Paul in this election cycle is that he is hard-headed and can't admit when he is wrong or defeated, and I am not sure how that would be any different than our last two Presidents have acted. I'd have a lot more respect for the guy if he knew when he was beaten, because that would at least demonstrate to me that he wouldn't drag the whole country down just to prove he was right, unlike Clinton and Bush.

[kapkomet]

/sings, way off tune, or pitchy as Randy Jackson would say...

 

Hooooooooooooooooneeeeeeeestlyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy...

[StrangeSox]

Vote Ron Paul. He is the only honest candidate!

 

Fixed it for you.

[kapkomet]

Fixed it for you.

Nice.

[StrangeSox]

More nutty-ness from ELF:

 

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008...et_ablaze/9905/

 

I wonder how much carbon burning all those buildings release?!?!!? Those eco-terrorists are polluting monsters!

[NorthSideSox72]

More nutty-ness from ELF:

 

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008...et_ablaze/9905/

 

I wonder how much carbon burning all those buildings release?!?!!? Those eco-terrorists are polluting monsters!

I saw that this morning, and I was trying to think of why they care about those particular houses. Rural cluster developments = bad, in their view apparently. Not that it matters much what they think. They're just common criminals who happen to also be good at destroying their own causes.

 

[Balta1701]

I saw that this morning, and I was trying to think of why they care about those particular houses. Rural cluster developments = bad, in their view apparently. Not that it matters much what they think. They're just common criminals who happen to also be good at destroying their own causes.

In general, urban sprawl is a very bad thing for the environment. From increasing commutes to the resources required to bring utilities, sewer, etc., out to a distance from even a small urban center, the impact is large. From an environmental perspective, high density areas actually have significant advantages. Shorter commutes, fewer cars on the road, less wasted energy in transportation, etc. Not as large as burning down a house of course, but still.

[NorthSideSox72]

In general, urban sprawl is a very bad thing for the environment. From increasing commutes to the resources required to bring utilities, sewer, etc., out to a distance from even a small urban center, the impact is large. From an environmental perspective, high density areas actually have significant advantages. Shorter commutes, fewer cars on the road, less wasted energy in transportation, etc. Not as large as burning down a house of course, but still.

I have seen before that idea, that having more condensed urban populations and more open space is better for the environment. But I'd suggest that shouldn't be taken to an extreme, nor does it paint the whole picture. Housing in high-density areas have severe limitations of how green they can be, and how easily they can dissipate discharge of all sorts. Housing that is more spread out can more easily do that.

 

In any case, of all the sins against the environment, building some houses out in the country doesn't begin to crack the top 100 as far as I am concerned. Not that it even matters, really - there is no justification for what they did.

 

[StrangeSox]

I have seen before that idea, that having more condensed urban populations and more open space is better for the environment. But I'd suggest that shouldn't be taken to an extreme, nor does it paint the whole picture. Housing in high-density areas have severe limitations of how green they can be, and how easily they can dissipate discharge of all sorts. Housing that is more spread out can more easily do that.

 

In any case, of all the sins against the environment, building some houses out in the country doesn't begin to crack the top 100 as far as I am concerned. Not that it even matters, really - there is no justification for what they did.

 

I think the issue is that these are large homes. It takes a lot more energy to light, heat, cool, etc. a 5000 sq. ft. home, with two furnaces and two or three AC units, than it does a modest 1200 sq ft. home. More building materials are also used, etc.

 

That said, these people are nuts and I personally have no desire to live in a high-density/ urban area. I enjoy having a yard and space.

[Controlled Chaos]

[southsider2k5]

This is for Alpha... sorry no link, it is out of Thursday's Sun Times in the Quick Takes column...

 

 

News Item: Moses was on drugs when he heard God deliver the 10 commandments, a researcher claims in a new study.

 

In other news, thousands of outrages Christians made death threats against the researcher and rioted across--

 

Wait. No death threats or riots?

 

Hmmm.

[EvilMonkey]

This is for Alpha... sorry no link, it is out of Thursday's Sun Times in the Quick Takes column...

News Item: Moses was on drugs when he heard God deliver the 10 commandments, a researcher claims in a new study.

 

In other news, thousands of outrages Christians made death threats against the researcher and rioted across--

 

Wait. No death threats or riots?

 

Hmmm.

Yeah, i saw that somewhere. There was also a small fake post about Christians rioting and stuff. Funny, eh?

[BearSox]

oh man, I gotta get that shirt for my niece.

Edited March 10, 2008 by BearSox

[EvilMonkey]

OK,. check this out. ABC has a slide show of 13 political sex scandals. Guess how many of them who are Dems actually are named as Dems? And then guess how many who are Repubs are named as repubs? No cheating, guess before you look. If I counted right, they picked 5 Dems and 7 Repubs. How many of each were named as such?

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Blotter/pop...x=1&page=13

 

And for all those liberal who claim that there is no bias, the old media can put a stop to this any time they want by instituting a style guideline, that says something like a politician's party affiliation must be mentioned inthe first paragraph or when their name is first mentioned. But they don't, so they can just move that little D or R around to wherever it seems to fit best for them in the story, paragraph 1 or 15.

[Rex Kickass]

OK,. check this out. ABC has a slide show of 13 political sex scandals. Guess how many of them who are Dems actually are named as Dems? And then guess how many who are Repubs are named as repubs? No cheating, guess before you look. If I counted right, they picked 5 Dems and 7 Repubs. How many of each were named as such?

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Blotter/pop...x=1&page=13

 

And for all those liberal who claim that there is no bias, the old media can put a stop to this any time they want by instituting a style guideline, that says something like a politician's party affiliation must be mentioned inthe first paragraph or when their name is first mentioned. But they don't, so they can just move that little D or R around to wherever it seems to fit best for them in the story, paragraph 1 or 15.

 

Actually, the style is consistent. If they are elected Senator or Congressman, the party is mentioned immediately after the first mention of their name. However, some people including Bush cabinet members, President Clinton and Spokane's mayor had no party mention at all.

 

Edit: Actually the style is not consistent, one Congressman of each party did not have their party explicitly revealed in the photo essay.

[Cknolls]

 

"Renegade"

 

"Renaissance"

 

"Evergreen"

 

 

These are the Secret Service names for the Dem. candidates, save Bubba.

 

No word on McCain's nickname. Nor Bubba's.

 

I wonder if Obama likes Styx.

 

I know Hillary loves Babs.

[NorthSideSox72]

"Renegade"

 

"Renaissance"

 

"Evergreen"

These are the Secret Service names for the Dem. candidates, save Bubba.

 

No word on McCain's nickname. Nor Bubba's.

 

I wonder if Obama likes Styx.

 

I know Hillary loves Babs.

Who is the third candidate - Edwards?

 

And I honestly can't tell for sure which is which. I assume Obama is the renegade, Clinton is Renaissance, and Edwards Evergreen. Is that the case?

 

I wonder what Richardson was, and what the GOP candidates were.

 

[southsider2k5]

Quote of the Day

 

Saying that Hillary Clinton has White House experience is like saying Yoko Ono was a Beatle.

[Cknolls]

Who is the third candidate - Edwards?

 

And I honestly can't tell for sure which is which. I assume Obama is the renegade, Clinton is Renaissance, and Edwards Evergreen. Is that the case?

 

I wonder what Richardson was, and what the GOP candidates were.

 

 

Sorry, Renaissance is Michelle Obama.

 

Barack is Renegade.

 

Hillary is Evergreen.

Edited March 11, 2008 by Cknolls