quote:

ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMeeks

Didn't it dawn on you that this story, with all it's detail, was on the wire within ONE HOUR of her speech? That's pretty fast 'fact checking' isn't it?

One hour. And, look how detailed his facts are constructed. This means that he loaded his guns well prior to her speech and was able to pick and choose how he was going to counter what was said no matter what was brought up. It was a setup.

It is this kind of overplaying of their hands that the old media is allowing itself to engage in that 'outs' them as Obama supporters and not true reporters.

This appeared to you to be a NEWS STORY. But, in fact it was a POLITICAL TALKING POINTS opinion peice. And, shame on AP for putting it on the wire without labeling as such.

So, your *rebuttal* amounts to 'he had his facts too straight' and 'he published it too quickly' - hardly condemning points. And apparently, the concept of 'prior release to the media', a practice so common that it merits mention only when it DOESN'T happen, never occured to you at all. Between having a longer lead time to work with than you assume, and having a better grip on historical fact (which one woiuld expect of a competent reporter) than you allow for, having his article published within an hour is hardly surprising.

You move on to a 'prejudicial language' error in logic, if not a total non sequitor, in attempting to dismiss the article as an op-ed piece, while making no attempt whatsoever to refute the facts OR the logic contained therein.

I won't even address the evident paranoia exhibited in your baseless attack on the 'old media' - res ipse loquitor, as well as begging the question.

You had every opportunity to challenge the facts expressed and to derail the logic leading to his stated conclusions - and not only failed, but didn't even make the attempt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMeeks

To my knowledge, there is not another person on these forums that has worked for years side by side with major media outlets covering stories and having the experience of seeing, directly, what is covered and how it is subsequently reported... day after day for years. I have.

Over and over I would cover a hearing from gavel to gavel and watch the major network show up for a few minutes at just the right time for the testimony that supported a left position then pack up and leave. The hearing I witnessed and the hearing I saw on TV were radically different in tone and import.

I knew what was being left out in their editing suite and what was being included and why. I also knew most of them, at least at that time, personally and knew exactly where they stood. Yes, it's been a lot of years ago. But, it's only gotten worse, not better.

I'll bet that had I not brought up the filing time, that you'd not even have notice it. Why do you think I did? Been there. Seen that.

Believe or don't believe, that's your choice. But, I for one, have the experience to see what is going on from the viewpoint of having been there. My 'attacks' on Old Media come from having worked side by side with them... not staring at a TV... being on a team covering the news... not consuming it. Think what you will.

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMeeks
This appeared to you to be a NEWS STORY. But, in fact it was a POLITICAL TALKING POINTS opinion peice. And, shame on AP for putting it on the wire without labeling as such.

I agree that it's an opinion piece and I, too was surprised to see that it came from the AP, but that still doesn't address the accuracy of it. For all the harping that posters here have done about Obama allegedly lying about his voting record, let's see some consistency. How do these points square with the notion of truth and honesty?

-Dan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ex-GOPer4Obama

but instead he chose to work with people who were facing hard times, and he helped make a difference in their lives.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMeeks

To my knowledge, there is not another person on these forums that has worked for years side by side with major media outlets covering stories and having the experience of seeing, directly, what is covered and how it is subsequently reported... day after day for years. I have.

Over and over I would cover a hearing from gavel to gavel and watch the major network show up for a few minutes at just the right time for the testimony that supported a left position then pack up and leave. The hearing I witnessed and the hearing I saw on TV were radically different in tone and import.

I knew what was being left out in their editing suite and what was being included and why. I also knew most of them, at least at that time, personally and knew exactly where they stood. Yes, it's been a lot of years ago. But, it's only gotten worse, not better.

I'll bet that had I not brought up the filing time, that you'd not even have notice it. Why do you think I did? Been there. Seen that.

Believe or don't believe, that's your choice. But, I for one, have the experience to see what is going on from the viewpoint of having been there. My 'attacks' on Old Media come from having worked side by side with them... not staring at a TV... being on a team covering the news... not consuming it. Think what you will.

Now an attempt to impose your of general experience, and admitted bias, to this specific instance, with still no attempt to rebut the facts and logic expressed in the original article.

Do the terms 'division error' and 'begging the question' mean anything to you? How about 'straw man'?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMeeks

Sure, with the democrat's position papers and talking points well in hand. You can bet these guys are being inundated with materials. But, one wonders is the fact checker checked the 'facts'? Notice, for instance, that he was ready to bring up Luger, completely out of nowhere, to butress one of his claims.

If you look at that same contention, you will see that the key word in Palin's claim was 'authored'. The writer ignores that specificity and turns it into a treatise on Obama 'working for' legislation. Authoring is different that working for. So, the writer skillfully mischaracterized Palin's claim and then rebutted the mischaracterized claim... not the actual claim. The question that should have been addressed is, "Did Obama AUTHOR any legislation." Not sponsor or support... AUTHOR.

By the way, the Brookings Institute, may not be an unbiased source for analyzing tax policy. The most radical of all the radicals I knew back in the 60's worked within the Brooking Institute. I don't know the makeup now. But, I DO know the makeup then. So, while things may have changed, I would be very cautious about their conclusions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rlj

quote:

Didn't it dawn on you that this story, with all it's detail, was on the wire within ONE HOUR of her speech? That's pretty fast 'fact checking' isn't it?

Did it occur to you with an excellent ISP, knowledge of google and following events in general that one could easily put together a piece twice that size in an hour?

Prejudicial language, assertion contrary to stated (and known) fact, semantics quibbling, moving the goalposts, and ad hominum.

Not a well-constructed rebuttal argument, especially since STILL no attempt to refute either the facts or the logic stated in the original article.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMeeks

Didn't it dawn on you that this story, with all it's detail, was on the wire within ONE HOUR of her speech? That's pretty fast 'fact checking' isn't it?

One hour. And, look how detailed his facts are constructed. This means that he loaded his guns well prior to her speech and was able to pick and choose how he was going to counter what was said no matter what was brought up. It was a setup.

It is this kind of overplaying of their hands that the old media is allowing itself to engage in that 'outs' them as Obama supporters and not true reporters.

This appeared to you to be a NEWS STORY. But, in fact it was a POLITICAL TALKING POINTS opinion peice. And, shame on AP for putting it on the wire without labeling as such.

So, your *rebuttal* amounts to 'he had his facts too straight' and 'he published it too quickly' - hardly condemning points.

quote:

Now an attempt to impose your of general experience, and admitted bias, to this specific instance, with still no attempt to rebut the facts and logic expressed in the original article.

Do the terms 'division error' and 'begging the question' mean anything to you? How about 'straw man'?

quote:

Thanks for posting this. Truthfulness and fair play have certainly been been a scarce commodity among the Loyal Bushies over the past 8 years, and it looks like that's going to continue if they get another 4 years. There were quite a few other misleading statements in the speeches Wednesday night. To name one, Palin denigrated Barack Obama as having been a mere "community organizer" prior to being elected to the Illinois State Legislature, conveniently overlooking the fact that this Harvard Law School grad was also working as a professor of constitutional law at the prestigious University of Chicago Law School. Obama could have taken a high-paying job somewhere (or become mayor of some little town) but instead he chose to work with people who were facing hard times, and he helped make a difference in their lives. Yet Palin mock's that work. How could this "fresh breath of air" be so full of cynicism and disrespect? I think Palin's many caustic comments about a brother in Christ are unworthy of a Christian woman. I know a lot of Obama supporters who need to find the Lord, but when they hear Palin saying such mean-spirited things with a big smile, I am concerned that they will want no part of Sarah Palin's God. As an ambassador for Christ, Palin needs to be mindful that the world is listening to the words that come from her mouth. Rather than serve as John McCain's beautiful but vicious attack dog, Palin should be elevating the tone of the McCain campaign. I would have liked to have heard Palin speak without any input from Karl Rove's speech writers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zhi

I'm just amused that the Democrat Presidential nominee is being compared to the Republican Vice Presidential pick. Is McCain really that far out of Obama's league, then?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

I always find it interesting that Obama supporters (whom we have observed destroying property, attacking police, building bombs in our city this last week) will harp on anyone about 'elevating' the political dialogue. Palin could have spit on stage last night and it would have been far superior in tone to what typical Obama supporters spew out.

quote:

Palin should be elevating the tone of the McCain campaign. I would have liked to have heard Palin speak without any input from Karl Rove's speech writers.

quote:

Very well said. I, too, would have been interested in getting to know Sarah Palin rather than just hearing another Karl Rove speech.

Historically, the Republicans don't know how to run an "issues" campaign. Unfortunately "fear and smear" sells with the mindless masses which explains why the republicans have gone so negative in the last decade. My surprise is how "christians" so readily support hate and vitrol in politics.

quote:

I, too, would have been interested in getting to know Sarah Palin rather than just hearing another Karl Rove speech.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinomax55

I pulled this from the AP:



By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer Wed Sep 3, 11:48 PM ET

ST. PAUL, Minn. - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her Republican supporters held back little Wednesday as they issued dismissive attacks on Barack Obama and flattering praise on her credentials to be vice president. In some cases, the reproach and the praise stretched the truth.
ADVERTISEMENT

Some examples:

PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."

THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."

PALIN: "There is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state senate."

THE FACTS: Compared to McCain and his two decades in the Senate, Obama does have a more meager record. But he has worked with Republicans to pass legislation that expanded efforts to intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and to help destroy conventional weapons stockpiles. The legislation became law last year. To demean that accomplishment would be to also demean the work of Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, a respected foreign policy voice in the Senate. In Illinois, he was the leader on two big, contentious measures in Illinois: studying racial profiling by police and requiring recordings of interrogations in potential death penalty cases. He also successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform legislation.

PALIN: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."

THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.

Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.

He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.

MCCAIN: "She's been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply ... She's responsible for 20 percent of the nation's energy supply. I'm entertained by the comparison and I hope we can keep making that comparison that running a political campaign is somehow comparable to being the executive of the largest state in America," he said in an interview with ABC News' Charles Gibson.

THE FACTS: McCain's phrasing exaggerates both claims. Palin is governor of a state that ranks second nationally in crude oil production, but she's no more "responsible" for that resource than President Bush was when he was governor of Texas, another oil-producing state. In fact, her primary power is the ability to tax oil, which she did in concert with the Alaska Legislature. And where Alaska is the largest state in America, McCain could as easily have called it the 47th largest state — by population.

MCCAIN: "She's the commander of the Alaska National Guard. ... She has been in charge, and she has had national security as one of her primary responsibilities," he said on ABC.

THE FACTS: While governors are in charge of their state guard units, that authority ends whenever those units are called to actual military service. When guard units are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, they assume those duties under "federal status," which means they report to the Defense Department, not their governors. Alaska's national guard units have a total of about 4,200 personnel, among the smallest of state guard organizations.

FORMER ARKANSAS GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE: Palin "got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States."

THE FACTS: A whopper. Palin got 616 votes in the 1996 mayor's election, and got 909 in her 1999 re-election race, for a total of 1,525. Biden dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses, but he still got 76,165 votes in 23 states and the District of Columbia where he was on the ballot during the 2008 presidential primaries.

FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOV. MITT ROMNEY: "We need change, all right — change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington — throw out the big-government liberals, and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin."

THE FACTS: A Back-to-the-Future moment. George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, has been president for nearly eight years. And until last year, Republicans controlled Congress. Only since January 2007 have Democrats have been in charge of the House and Senate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evangel70

quote:

Palin should be elevating the tone of the McCain campaign. I would have liked to have heard Palin speak without any input from Karl Rove's speech writers.

Very well said. I, too, would have been interested in getting to know Sarah Palin rather than just hearing another Karl Rove speech.

Historically, the Republicans don't know how to run an "issues" campaign. Unfortunately "fear and smear" sells with the mindless masses which explains why the republicans have gone so negative in the last decade. My surprise is how "christians" so readily support hate and vitrol in politics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zhi

I'm just amused that the Democrat Presidential nominee is being compared to the Republican Vice Presidential pick. Is McCain really that far out of Obama's league, then?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tafkam

quote:

I, too, would have been interested in getting to know Sarah Palin rather than just hearing another Karl Rove speech.

That's all I've heard from the media today, that palin not only had a speechwriter, but (gasp!) Bush speechwriter.

I guess the fact that Obama, Biden, McCain et al, ALL have folks who draft their speeches is somewhat lost on them.

And boy I wish I was Karl Rove for a day...can you imagine getting credit for every blessed thing under the sun? Wow!

quote:

I always find it interesting that Obama supporters (whom we have observed destroying property, attacking police, building bombs in our city this last week) will harp on anyone about 'elevating' the political dialogue. Palin could have spit on stage last night and it would have been far superior in tone to what typical Obama supporters spew out.

quote:

I have seen nothing to indicate those protestors in St Paul (who should be immediately arrested if they're destroying property) are part of the Obama campaign.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/conventions/27840754.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUo8cyaiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

quote:

Well, they can't be Ron Paul supporters, there is more than five of them.

quote:

Truth is, taxes are unlikely to go down regardless of who wins.