hrothgar Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 Um, allow me to correct you. If you google the entire quote you get 6 hits. Two of which are Youtube. That's not thousands of sites. That's 5. And this, um, error, was perpetrated by the same person whose claim to accusations of bias is to say we are all biased... Btw, if you want to criticize me because I don't know your source then knock yourself out. I would be happy to give a "fair" and much more specific criticism if you admit your source. The first time I searched on this quote, I only got six hits. The second time I searched I got LOTS more. Most of them are still way out there, but there are more than six. Note that the "sane" sites seem to be responses to the wing nuts... I think that inclusion of a leading quote sign has an effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s I wonder what sentiment he actually meant to express. Maybe something about affordable healthcare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 Um, allow me to correct you. If you google the entire quote you get 6 hits. Two of which are Youtube. That's not thousands of sites. That's 5. And this, um, error, was perpetrated by the same person whose claim to accusations of bias is to say we are all biased... Btw, if you want to criticize me because I don't know your source then knock yourself out. I would be happy to give a "fair" and much more specific criticism if you admit your source. The first time I searched on this quote, I only got six hits. The second time I searched I got LOTS more. Most of them are still way out there, but there are more than six. Note that the "sane" sites seem to be responses to the wing nuts... I think that inclusion of a leading quote sign has an effect. I think the effect is to not catch misquotes. Just glancing, when I removed quotation marks and thus searched for any link that has all the words in it rather than the words in that particular order, I instantly saw some links with extra words added, misspelled, etc. Then again, Jimmy used quotation marks. I think it is fair to conclude he got the quote somewhere exactly as he quoted it, of which there are still 5 websites. Of course I would still be happy to simply be told where. I will fully admit, my original replies to his point were based just on the 6 hits from the google search of the entire quote, in quotation marks. I will grant him Youtube is not some wingnut website, although there are plenty of them posting videos there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoAnneM Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 This ranks right up there with the latest Andy Rooney hoax speech that is going around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted March 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 i didn't google the quote, i didn't know the quote... someone at work mentioned that the prez wanted an armed civilian security force and i didn't believe it so i googled 'obamba national security force'... i went to youtube because you mentioned it, and saw that portion of the speech... btw, what i said still stands - just because you or i don't think either fox or cnn is unbiased doesn't have anything to do with the issue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s I wonder what sentiment he actually meant to express. Maybe something about affordable healthcare. Thanks. basically I would not have believed it if I hadn't seen it. I have no idea what he meant. Many years ago I was preparing to give a talk on a theorem I had proved. I read over my proof and at one point I looked in horror at what I had written. What the hell had I been thinking? Fortunately what I had meant to say was correct and I got the right version in to the publisher before it appeared. People should try hard to not babble nonsense but it happens. Speculating on what he really meant seems pointless. It would have been interesting to ask the wildly applauding audience what exactly they thought the proposal was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 i didn't google the quote, i didn't know the quote... someone at work mentioned that the prez wanted an armed civilian security force and i didn't believe it so i googled 'obamba national security force'... i went to youtube because you mentioned it, and saw that portion of the speech... btw, what i said still stands - just because you or i don't think either fox or cnn is unbiased doesn't have anything to do with the issue Jimmy: I introduced Fox News as an analogy... It wasn't meant to be a focal point of the discussion. The core point is not whether or not Fox New is biased. I am simply pointing out that the information that you post is (strongly) biased. You have a consistent history of echoing whatever inane right right talking points has flittered into your brain. I don't know if this is deliberate effort on your point to spread these talking points. It's entirely possible that you are simply surrounded by idiots and are too lazy to ever bother conducting any kind of independent research. Either way, however, your actions manifest them in the same way...A monotonous stream of drivel that the rest of use need to waste time debunking... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orlam Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 This is in contrast to the previous administration, which was quite willing to sacrifice national security for political gains. I generally view this one the other way 'round. Do you know of anything by the Obama people that compares with the Valerie Plame exposure? By "other way 'round," I didn't mean anything with respect to other administrations. I meant sacrificing political capital in pursuit of national security interests (rightly or wrongly, correctly or incorrectly, efficiently or inefficiently). I thought Bush was re-elected because people were afraid and wanted him to be in charge of national security? (I have never seen it but I remember reading that his closing ad in 2004 was related to that.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 btw, what i said still stands - just because you or i don't think either fox or cnn is unbiased doesn't have anything to do with the issue I should mention that don't agree that cnn is biased. My opinion is that they have 'independents' who are biased to the left (Larry King) and to the right (Lou Dobbs) and who are extremely fair minded and in the middle (David Gergen). Additionally, all their shows tend to have guests with opposing viewpoints on each episode. Whereas Fox doesn't have a single liberal commentator that I am aware of (and believe it or not I've watched a fair amount of Fox News lately, a tv in our employee cafeteria is locked on that station.) What Richard said also still stands. Picking a line out of a long speech and presenting it for discussion with no context is foolish, and makes it seem like you have an agenda instead of being interested in a meaningful discourse. That's where his Fox News analogy is quite appropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 btw, what i said still stands - just because you or i don't think either fox or cnn is unbiased doesn't have anything to do with the issue I should mention that don't agree that cnn is biased. My opinion is that they have 'independents' who are biased to the left (Larry King) and to the right (Lou Dobbs) and who are extremely fair minded and in the middle (David Gergen). Additionally, all their shows tend to have guests with opposing viewpoints on each episode. Whereas Fox doesn't have a single liberal commentator that I am aware of (and believe it or not I've watched a fair amount of Fox News lately, a tv in our employee cafeteria is locked on that station.) What Richard said also still stands. Picking a line out of a long speech and presenting it for discussion with no context is foolish, and makes it seem like you have an agenda instead of being interested in a meaningful discourse. That's where his Fox News analogy is quite appropriate. Speaking as someone on the left: Do we have to take Larry King? I'd be glad trade him for a future draft pick... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 I don't blame you. How about some cash and a Kennedy to be named later? I actually made a point to start watching Fox News, so that at least if I was going to criticize I would know what I'm talking about. Who knows, maybe I would even be 'enlightened' and decide it was a good source. All I've really become enlightened about is why the people who watch it think the rest of the media is biased... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 FoxNews, imposed at lunch!?!. Good grief. I recently was in the waiting room in a doctor's office, forced to listen to Cosby Show reruns. Whether this is or isn't worse than FoxNews would be a close call except that I only had to do it for part of an hour on one day. Don't you have a union that could protest such a violation of worker's rights? It reminds me of the high school principal that I read about who punished misbehavior by placing the students in a room and playing old Frank Sinatra recordings. Serious infractions would receive a sentence of ten Franks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 This ranks right up there with the latest Andy Rooney hoax speech that is going around. What's the Andy Rooney hoax speech? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted March 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 This ranks right up there with the latest Andy Rooney hoax speech that is going around. What's the Andy Rooney hoax speech? i don't know, but i doubt they have rooney on youtube giving his hoax speech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 I think someone sent me something supposedly by Rooney some time back. Something else by (supposedly) George Carlin. Also something by a "noted Spanish author". And by a "world authority" on something. There is a type of brain, mostly on the right in my experience, that loves this sort of crap. I wouldn't link Jimmy's post with this junk. I think Obama just said something stupid. That's not good, but I wouldn't bash him with it forever if nothing he subsequently does or says indicates it was serious. Actually my main quarrel with the style of what is currently coming from Obama and company is the constant comparison they feel that they have to make with policies of the past. The election is over, they won, they will be judged by what they accomplish, not by how different it is from the past. I wish them, and us, the very best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 This ranks right up there with the latest Andy Rooney hoax speech that is going around. What's the Andy Rooney hoax speech? i don't know, but i doubt they have rooney on youtube giving his hoax speech No one is disputing that Obama made the statement in question.Most of us simply don't care since we consider the statement a non issue... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 Actually my main quarrel with the style of what is currently coming from Obama and company is the constant comparison they feel that they have to make with policies of the past. The election is over, they won, they will be judged by what they accomplish, not by how different it is from the past. I wish them, and us, the very best. True, the Obama administration will be judged on its accomplishments. But I think it fair to bring up the past whenever the alternatives offered by the loyal opposition have failed spectacularly in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted March 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 This ranks right up there with the latest Andy Rooney hoax speech that is going around. What's the Andy Rooney hoax speech? i don't know, but i doubt they have rooney on youtube giving his hoax speech No one is disputing that Obama made the statement in question.Most of us simply don't care since we consider the statement a non issue... there's a big difference between thinking it a non-issue (and to me it's obviously not) and using the word "hoax" when discussing it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elianna Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 This ranks right up there with the latest Andy Rooney hoax speech that is going around. What's the Andy Rooney hoax speech? I don't know specifically what "the hoax" is, but there are a bunch of emails going around claiming he said certain things. And some are true, and some are not: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/soapbox.asp#rooney Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 Actually my main quarrel with the style of what is currently coming from Obama and company is the constant comparison they feel that they have to make with policies of the past. The election is over, they won, they will be judged by what they accomplish, not by how different it is from the past. I wish them, and us, the very best. True, the Obama administration will be judged on its accomplishments. But I think it fair to bring up the past whenever the alternatives offered by the loyal opposition have failed spectacularly in the past. Fair maybe. I see it as lacking in class. Such things can come back to haunt him. Secretary Clinton tells us how happy the Russians are with the new administration. This makes me uneasy. Maybe she also looked into Putin's soul? She says how happy the Europeans are. This is naive. President Obama tells us how he will be doing economic things correctly rather than the stupid way they were dome in the past. I hope so. Buddy can you spare a dime. Asking for selflessness and bipartisanship is unrealistic. Otoh, not going out of your way to insult Republicans is just common sense. I imagine some of those guys actually have some thoughtful ideas. Yes I know that Bush and company acted like total jerks when they were in power. That also was a mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 When stockmarkets go down, or huge companies lose billions or go bankrupt...the "free capital markets" are working....not failing...... Note this means that those who have capital are fleeing those "losing investments" to invest in "money making investments." 1)IF we need more government in the economy...ok.........just tell us why?..2) If we need less risk in the economy ..ok....why less? Please note if you really believe we need more government and less risk in the economy.....you may be correct but why? In other words....government decides where the capital flows SHOULD GO not private capital As I said in other threads should the same guy who holds POLITICAL POWER also decide where ECONOMIC POWER, capital flows should go...... The answer may be YES. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Secretary Clinton tells us how happy the Russians are with the new administration. This makes me uneasy. Maybe she also looked into Putin's soul? She says how happy the Europeans are. This is naive. President Obama tells us how he will be doing economic things correctly rather than the stupid way they were dome in the past. I hope so. Buddy can you spare a dime. The reasons why the Medvedev / Putin government is so popular in Russia is because after the terrible 90s, Putin really pulled the cart out of the mud. Russia has gone from a country to be pitied to a country with power under Putin. Russians are proud of these, which is why most whose situation has not improved much will still vote for Putin: They believe in a strong Russia and that this will soon bring prosperity to them, even if they don't have it yet. Of course one can and should sharply criticize the regime for how it treats opponents, but I guess that Medvedev would have won the elections even without tricks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Secretary Clinton tells us how happy the Russians are with the new administration. This makes me uneasy. Maybe she also looked into Putin's soul? She says how happy the Europeans are. This is naive. President Obama tells us how he will be doing economic things correctly rather than the stupid way they were dome in the past. I hope so. Buddy can you spare a dime. The reasons why the Medvedev / Putin government is so popular in Russia is because after the terrible 90s, Putin really pulled the cart out of the mud. Russia has gone from a country to be pitied to a country with power under Putin. Russians are proud of these, which is why most whose situation has not improved much will still vote for Putin: They believe in a strong Russia and that this will soon bring prosperity to them, even if they don't have it yet. Of course one can and should sharply criticize the regime for how it treats opponents, but I guess that Medvedev would have won the elections even without tricks. This emotional orientation of the Russian people makes sense to me. I believe in a strong United States, I assume Iranians believe in a strong Iran and so on. I try hard to keep in mind that a great deal of harm can come from such an orientation whether from Russians, Iranians or the US. I try to keep a sense of humor about nationalist vanities. Example: After Iran took American hostages during Carter's presidency, all the Iranians I knew began describing themselves as Persians. I imagine they figured that most Americans wouldn't know the connection and I imagine they were right. Example: I became fairly close to a guy from the Netherlands who was visiting the States for a year. His list of complaints about the US seemed unending. But then somehow we got to talking about France. Good grief, the guy was even more critical of the French than he was of Americans. Very revealing and amusing. Anyway,while I cannot really follow Will Rogers and say that I never met a man I didn't like, I mostly find people interesting and I hope our governments can work together for our common good. I think Ms. Clinton sometimes sounds as if she was born yesterday but she wasn't, so maybe it will all work out. I guess the above is pretty bland but I'm a bland sort of guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASkolnick Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 I agree that FOX is biased to the right, however to say CNN and NPR is not slanted towards the left is not true. However, there are many more extreme cases than these news channels. Actually, the most balance perspective I usually get about news is this forum since you get the following: A person makes a comment from one perspective.Several people either agreeing or disagreeing in this forum, trying to back them up with facts.Since not everyone is American here, it also allows someone to give a view as an outsider. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 This ranks right up there with the latest Andy Rooney hoax speech that is going around. What's the Andy Rooney hoax speech? i don't know, but i doubt they have rooney on youtube giving his hoax speech No one is disputing that Obama made the statement in question. Perhaps a definition of "hoax" with which I'm not familiar was being used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.