Obama a Marxist? Seriously?

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
But there is no denying that the leadership of the Democrat party is extremely corrupt and duplicitous.

I deny it

You would.

Quote:
There is no denying that most of those who vote Democrat are woefully uninformed as to the extent of this corruption and duplicity.

They are uniformed because it is a figment of your imagination.

Ask most Democrats about Filegate, Chinagate, the Death of Ron Brown, the actual contents of the ISG report, the status of the war in Iraq right now, the accuracy of Obama's statements on the WOT and Iraq or drilling, and you'll merely hear a regurgitation of the misinformation that has been promoted by the mainstream media.

Quote:
That's thanks to a media whose members mostly vote Democrat.

Could be true.

It isn't "could be", it clearly "is", regardless of the definition of "is". Study after study has shown that almost all mainstream media votes Democrat and is biased liberal. For example:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

In 1981, S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, and Stanley Rothman of Smith College, released a groundbreaking survey of 240 journalists at the most influential national media outlets — including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS — on their political attitudes and voting patterns. Results of this study of the “media elite” were included in the October/November 1981 issue of Public Opinion, published by the American Enterprise Institute, in the article “Media and Business Elites.” The data demonstrated that journalists and broadcasters hold liberal positions on a wide range of social and political issues.

... snip ...

81 percent of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976

And that was when the mainstream media was relatively unbiased!

Now continuing from the above link:

In 1995, Kenneth Walsh, a reporter for U.S. News & World Report, polled 28 of his fellow White House correspondents from the four TV networks, the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Washington Post, Copley, Cox, Hearst, Knight-Ridder, plus Newsweek, Time and U.S. News & World Report, about their presidential voting patterns for his 1996 book Feeding the Beast: The White House versus the Press. Walsh found that his colleagues strongly preferred Democrats, with the White House press corps admitting a total of 50 votes for Democratic candidates compared to just seven for Republicans.

And there are more surveys cited there if you don't believe those. How about this one:

In April 1996, the Freedom Forum published a report by Chicago Tribune writer Elaine Povich titled, “Partners and Adversaries: The Contentious Connection Between Congress and the Media.” Buried in Appendix D was the real news for those concerned about media bias: Based on the 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents who returned the Freedom Forum questionnaire, the Washington-based reporters — by an incredible margin of nine-to-one — overwhelmingly cast their presidential ballots in 1992 for Democrat Bill Clinton over Republican incumbent George Bush.

Or this:

New York Times columnist John Tierney surveyed 153 campaign journalists at a press party at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. Although it was not a scientific sampling, Tierney found a huge preference for Democratic Senator John Kerry over incumbent Republican President George W. Bush, particular among journalists based in Washington, D.C. He found that journalists from outside Washington preferred Kerry by a three-to-one margin, while those who work inside the Beltway favored Kerry’s election by a 12-to-1 ratio.

Bottom line is that you'd have to have been living in a cave to still think the media isn't biased ... or perhaps you were just listening to the mainstream media deny it.

Maybe the members of the media are more intelligent than average. Well, except for the ones that work for Fox.

Yes, you go ahead and try to rationalize this away. That says more about you than you guess.

Quote:
I also think that Obama and Democrats are extremely naive where foreign policy and threats to the United States are concern.

I can't deny that you believe it, but I deny that it is true.

How about arguing against the case I made to prove it. I noticed you never showed up on any of those threads.

Quote:
This naivety has been proven by history over and over.

I deny it.

Right. You probably still think we should have just learned to live with the Soviet Union. And that Saddam was just misunderstood. For that matter, so is al-Qaeda, Iran and North Korea. If we all hold hands and sing kumbayaa ... you know, work on developing our empathy ... everything be ok. Right?

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Would it be ok with you if Obama accepted money from al-Qaeda?

Evasion noted. Please answer Upchurch's question.

I actually did answer it. And notice YOUR evasion.

 

[BeAChooser]

Obama served on the board of the Woods fund of Chicago. Did Obama choose the members of the board?

Does that absolve him for accepting membership in a group that INVITES an unrepetent terrorist (murderer) into it's midst? Hmmmm?

Are you suggesting that the only appropriate action for Obama would be to resign if there is another member on the board with whom he disagrees?

Yes, perhaps that is what he should have done. Just like he should have resigned from Wright's church when it became evident what it represented.

It sure will make it difficult to continue to serve on congressional committees.

Can you identify any unrepentent terrorists and murderers on congressional committees? Hmmmm?

There is a difference between having a "friendly relationship" and being "friends".

Yes, we keep hearing that excuse from Obama.

There are many people with whom I have a "friendly relationship" with whose politics I disagree.

We aren't just talking about "political" differences. We are talking about an unrepentent terrorist who committed murder. Do you have friendly relationships with folks like that?

I do not have my acquaintances vetted before the FBI before I invite them to dinner.

Oh ... so now you are going to claim that Obama didn't know who Ayer was all these years? Sort of like his denial regarding the content of Reverend Wright's numerous sermons?

 

[BeAChooser]

Meet Ayers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxoiZdBSi-g

Why is it that Obama will not disavow Ayers and his views? Is he trying to show empathy?

 

[gdnp]

It isn't "could be", it clearly "is", regardless of the definition of "is". Study after study has shown that almost all mainstream media votes Democrat and is biased liberal. For example: (snip)

Let us do an experiment.

Let us say that we take a poll of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on evolution.

Of those responding, 95% favor evolution and 5% favor creationism. A ratio of 20 to 1.

I look at polls of the opinions of the US population like this one and determine that only 50% of the population believes in evolution.

I therefore conclude that scientists are biased.

Is there anything wrong with my reasoning?

If so, is there any possible flaw to your argument, based on polls of the preferences of reporters, that the media is "biased liberal?"

 

[gdnp]

Oh ... so now you are going to claim that Obama didn't know who Ayer was all these years?

Sigh. So much misinformation, so little time.

I have no idea if Obama knew who Ayers was in a general sense, new who he was in more detail, or didn't know at all. Nor do I care.

Do you have any evidence that Obama knew him more than on a casual basis or that they collaborated together on some sort of radical anti-American proposal? Your objection seems to be that Obama should have refused to spend time in the same room as the man. A standard that I refuse to hold him to.

Sort of like his denial regarding the content of Reverend Wright's numerous sermons?

"numerous sermons?". I've heard excerpts from the "God damn America" sermon. Wright became minister at Trinity in 1972, 36 years ago. During that time he may have delivered up to 1800 sermons.

Let's say that he said objectionable things in 1% of them. Would that count as "numerous?" Well, not really. That would count as "a few" or "rare". But no matter.

Please give me a list of 17 other objectionable sermons that Rev. Wright made--one every other year--and I will admit that maybe Obama should have known that Wright was making objectionable comments.

 

[BeAChooser]

Let us do an experiment. ... snip ...
Is there anything wrong with my reasoning?

Absolutely. You are comparing apples to oranges.

The studies I cited are not polls of the American people concerning the bias of media personalities. They are direct surveys of the media personalities themselves and the way they voted. Just as the studies examining bias in the media do it by looking at (for instance) the number of articles that appear on various issues. Unsubstantiated rumors of Bush using drugs. Hundreds of articles appear. Direct evidence suggesting Ron Brown may have been murdered. A handful at best. Get the picture?

 

[BeAChooser]

Sigh. So much misinformation, so little time

Not misinformation. Just an interpretation of information you don't like.

I have no idea if Obama knew who Ayers was in a general sense, new who he was in more detail, or didn't know at all. Nor do I care.

You don't care if Obama knew that Ayers was an admitted and unrepentant terrorist and murderer, and was still willing to be seen with him at various functions and even accept money from him for his campaign?

Do you have any evidence that Obama knew him more than on a casual basis

He was invited to his home where Obama began his political rise. We know that much. Beyond that, neither Ayers or Obama will say anything. That in itself is also suspicous.

Your objection seems to be that Obama should have refused to spend time in the same room as the man.

If he knew he was an unrepentant terrorist and murder? Yes.

A standard that I refuse to hold him to.

Well, that says volumes.

Quote:
Sort of like his denial regarding the content of Reverend Wright's numerous sermons?

"numerous sermons?".

Yes, numerous sermons. Surely Obama didn't miss them all.

I've heard excerpts from the "God damn America" sermon.

Well you should read the whole thing to get the full impact.

Please give me a list of 17 other objectionable sermons that Rev. Wright made--one every other year--and I will admit that maybe Obama should have known that Wright was making objectionable comments.

And while you are reading that sermon, keep in mind that this is a man that Obama described as his mentor, trusted friend, counselor and teacher. Keep in mind that Obama said he would never repudiate Wright ... and then did just that.

 

[SezMe]

It isn't "could be", it clearly "is", regardless of the definition of "is". Study after study has shown that almost all mainstream media votes Democrat and is biased liberal. For example:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

So, BAC wants to point us to evidence of liberal media bias. Does he cite a university research project? A well respected, recognized neutral source? A study containing methodology, numbers and analysis?

No. He sends us to Media Research....whose main page headline is, "The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias".

Riiiight. I'm certainly going to accept that source as being an unvarnished carrier of the unvarnished truth.

ETA:

Now I've looked at the text of the three quotes that BAC cites as being a part of "study after study" Here is what I find:

In 1995, Kenneth Walsh, a reporter for U.S. News & World Report, polled 28 of his fellow White House correspondents from the four TV networks...

Asking your friends is a study? Really? Where the hell is that laughing dog?

Based on the 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents who returned the Freedom Forum questionnaire...

Hmmmm. Only those who returned the questionaire... Yep, any upper division high school student who has taken rudimentary statistics would be looking for the laughing dog.

New York Times columnist John Tierney surveyed 153 campaign journalists at a press party at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston.

OMG. That is surely the most unbiased sampling process I can think of.

BAC, tell me, do you have "Confirmation Bias" tatooed on your forehead as an effort at full disclosure?

 

[gdnp]

Absolutely. You are comparing apples to oranges.

The studies I cited are not polls of the American people concerning the bias of media personalities. They are direct surveys of the media personalities themselves and the way they voted.

So the scientists that are best trained to evaluate the evidence believe overwhelmingly that evolution is true, but this is not bias. In this case you will ignore the opinion of the American people.

Who is better able to evaluate the pros and cons of the political parties than the reporters who follow the politicians personally on a daily basis? These people know the policies, personalities, etc. better than anyone. But when they overwhelmingly support the democrats, and you call this bias. You will not accept the possibility that they support the Democrats because they have objectively examined the evidence and this is the logical choice.

Just as the studies examining bias in the media do it by looking at (for instance) the number of articles that appear on various issues. Unsubstantiated rumors of Bush using drugs. Hundreds of articles appear. Direct evidence suggesting Ron Brown may have been murdered. A handful at best.

No, you are mistaken. Evidence that Bush used drugs led to only a handful of articles despite Bush's refusal to deny them, whereas nutcase conspiracy theories that Ron Brown was murdered led to dozens of stories despite their absurdity.

Get the picture?

yep. Do you?

 

[SezMe]

BeAChooser, do you understand the difference between a contribution and an association?

Would it be ok with you if Obama accepted money from al-Qaeda?

Evasion noted. Please answer Upchurch's question.

I actually did answer it.

You did? You must have used invisible pixel ink. Could you restate your answer.

I have this abject fear that BAC is just a made up person who is trolling for suckers and I'm buying it hook, line and sinker. Surely no real person has such a limited scope of view. Man, I'm gonna feel really stupid if that turns out the be the case.

 

[BeAChooser]

So, BAC wants to point us to evidence of liberal media bias. Does he cite a university research project? A well respected, recognized neutral source? A study containing methodology, numbers and analysis?

No.

You only prove you didn't actually read what I posted or go to the Media Research link and read that. My post cited specific studies from respected sources that contained methodology, numbers and analysis. The Media Research site cited even more and provided links to those specific studies ... studies done by professors at such respected institutions of learning as George Washington University, Smith College and the University of Connecticut, and by respected media outlets such as US News & World Report, the Los Angeles Times (one could hardly argue they are conservatively biased), the Chicago Tribune, and even the New York Times (also, clearly not a conservative source). I know this is difficult for you to accept, since you've had the blinders on so long, but most of the mainstream media is definitely biased toward democrats and democrat agendas. And Media Research isn't the only one who has notice that.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
By Meg Sullivan
12/14/2005

... snip ...

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co?author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar."

... snip ...

The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.

"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said.

 

[SezMe]

They are direct surveys of the media personalities themselves and the way they voted.

No, they are not "surveys". As shown in my previous post, they are little more than anecdotal, junk pieces of information that yield exactly zero information regarding media bias.

 

[Gurdur]

Not true. I don't "hate" them. .... So Hate has nothing to do with it, Gurder. Hate is an irrational emotion. My dislike of the current Democrat party and its leaders is entirely rational.

Sure, sure, you're so funny, BAC. You claim to have a "rational dislike"? Would that be why you in your posts so often refer to Democrats as DemocRATs?

How very childish of you. No, your dislike is not rational in the slightest, nor are your claims not to hate believable in the slightest, when looking at your posting history.

BTW, best to lay off praising yourself so much. It's kinda pathetic, and makes you look even less worthy of being taken seriously.

 

[SezMe]

You only prove you didn't actually read what I posted or go to the Media Research link and read that. My post cited specific studies from respected sources that contained methodology, numbers and analysis.

By one of my previous posts I not only gave evidence that I read what you posted, I quoted some parts to show that it was a load of crap.

But you are partly right. I did not wade through all the other stuff at Media Research because I do not trust it as a source of information on media bias. Why? Because they, themselves advertise the fact that they are not a reliable source. I provided evidence for that assertion upthread.

 

[BeAChooser]

Who is better able to evaluate the pros and cons of the political parties than the reporters who follow the politicians personally on a daily basis?

Ah, so this explains why they choose to publish hundreds of articles on ANY embarrassing Republican rumor but hardly mention *little* things like allegations by forensic pathologists (democrat ones at that) about mass murder peripheral to Chinagate or about credible (according to the FBI) rape allegations against a democrat President? Because they are smarter and more informed than the rest of us? If you could only listen to yourself. ROTFLOL!

These people know the policies, personalities, etc. better than anyone. But when they overwhelmingly support the democrats, and you call this bias.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the professors at the universities they come out of are overwhelmingly liberals and Democrats too. Call their university experience a filter that ensures they will be "left" minded. Ever think of that?

You will not accept the possibility that they support the Democrats because they have objectively examined the evidence and this is the logical choice.

Obviously, you don't ever listen to yourself.

No, you are mistaken. Evidence that Bush used drugs led to only a handful of articles despite Bush's refusal to deny them, whereas nutcase conspiracy theories that Ron Brown was murdered led to dozens of stories despite their absurdity.

I'm mistaken? I'm afraid you haven't been paying attention to the recent discussions on this forum. First, some examples of media coverage of the Bush drug use allegation.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_35_15/ai_55927035

Reporters Dog Bush About Drugs but Let Clinton Slide on Broaddrick, Insight on the News, Sept 20, 1999 by Brent Baker

No one has claimed to have witnessed Texas Gov. George W. Bush using cocaine or any other illegal drug, but that didn't stop reporters during the last weeks from repeatedly pressing him for a definitive answer about his alleged history of drug abuse. That media interest in a rumor about possible criminal acts committed decades ago stands in stark contrast to the media's widespread refusal to pursue the charge by Juanita Broaddrick that Bill Clinton sexually assaulted her in 1978.

The drug questions were fueled in late July by a weeklong profile of Bush in the Washington Post. Reporters Lois Romano and George Lardner insisted, "We need to ask the cocaine question. We think you believe that a politician should not let stories fester. So why won't you just deny that you've used cocaine?" ABC TV invited Romano to be a guest on the July 27 edition of Good Morning America to dismiss Bush's answer: "He's basically declared that his life began at 40 and that we're supposed to not ask about that other fellow before 40, and I don't know if he can hold to that position."

... snip ...

In contrast to an eyewitness accusing Clinton of committing a felony, there is no one accusing Bush of drug use; nonetheless, reporters keep demanding that he answer drug questions and then treat the very occurrence of the queries as justification for news stories. On Aug. 19, ABC anchor Charlie Gibson asserted "the question is dogging his otherwise smooth campaign." NBC anchor Brian Williams called it "the question that will not go away." (Bush's evolving answer during that week, in which he expanded his drug-free years from seven to 25, gave the networks a convenient story hook, but Clinton's evasive press-conference answer about Broaddrick -- "There's been a statement made by my attorney. He speaks for me, and I think he spoke quite clearly" -- did not motivate them to pursue her charge.)

Viewers of the Aug. 19 NBC Nightly News were treated to three minutes on the subject and ABC's World News Tonight gave it three-and-a-half minutes -- which is exactly three minutes and three-and-a-half minutes more time than the two shows devoted in February or early March to Broaddrick's charge. The CBS Evening News aired a piece for the second consecutive night on Thursday on the drug issue, thus giving twice as much attention to Bush and drugs as to Broaddrick. Thursday morning Good Morning America brought aboard former Clinton adviser George Stephanopoulos to analyze the controversy and NBC's Today ran a pretaped interview with Bush during which the interviewer raised the drug question. Today returned Friday with a discussion about media coverage.

That picture doesn't quite fit your description.

As to there being dozens of stories on the Brown allegation, note that NONE of them came from the mainstream media. And only the Chicago Tribune published them. An example of media bias.

Quote:
Get the picture?

yep. Do you?

Yes I do.

You.

http://www.mgilbert.net/ostrich.jpg

 

[BeAChooser]

You did? You must have used invisible pixel ink. Could you restate your answer.

You mean you didn't understand what I said? Do I need to say it louder, more slowly and with words of no more than 5 letters ... like they do at Democrat Conventions?

 

[BeAChooser]

No, they are not "surveys". As shown in my previous post, they are little more than anecdotal, junk pieces of information that yield exactly zero information regarding media bias.

If you sez so.

 

[BeAChooser]

Would that be why you in your posts so often refer to Democrats as DemocRATs?

Hey, I'm just poking a little fun at them for getting so upset because they thought they saw a subliminal in a Republican ad. But then democRATS do tend to be humorless so I wouldn't expect you to detect the humor.

 

[BeAChooser]

I did not wade through all the other stuff at Media Research because I do not trust it as a source of information on media bias.

http://web.missouri.edu/~milyoj/files/Critical Review offprint.pdf

A SOCIAL-SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE ON MEDIA BIAS

ABSTRACT: The questions of whether the news media are biased, and if so, in
what direction, typically generate more heat than light. Here, we review some
of the most recent and meritorious empirical studies on media bias.This evi-
dence suggests that several prominent national news outlets have a distinct
slant to the left or right, and that exposure to these sources influences both
public opinion and voting behavior

... snip ...

Our findings, when considered along with other recent and relatively
high-quality studies of media content and media exposure, constitute
fairly convincing evidence that those who scoff at the notion of liberal
media bias are wrong. In judging the work-product of the mainstream
media, the answer is relatively clear: there is bias, and it is roughly as far
(or farther) to the left than Fox News “Special Report” is biased to the
right.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmY4YWMxYjVmYzNhMjdjYmJjMWQ3NGIwN2ZhMWFiOGI=

Goldberg Variations
Notes and an announcement on media bias.

...snip ...

In fact, there are only two identifiable groups who do not think — rather, know — that the mainstream press leans liberal: working members of the mainstream press, and hardcore, Lenin-goateed, Mother Jones-reading left-wingers.