IDBillzFan Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Fine, you write the checks from your account. No, no, no. Don't you see? Paying for it is not his responsibility. He just comes up with these ideas. Let someone else figure out how to make unicorns fly. That's not his job cuz he's an ideas guy. Wait. Here's one. What if you mix the mayonnaise in the can, WITH the tunafish? Or... hold it! I got it! Take LIVE tuna fish, and FEED 'em mayonnaise! Oh this is great.
3rdnlng Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 What I find amazing is that right after this post bob posted a vid of real doctors, on camera, talking about how they feel their system is better. So if you haven't watched it yet you might not want to or you're going to have to change that line you keep repeating over and over again. Like a Fox News anchor, you seem to be under the impression that your opinion, if stated forcefully enough, constitutes fact. And I think Obama care should be repealed and replaced with a system the extends Medicare to everyone. Otherwise it's the best we're going to get at the moment. So, lyrbob posts another youtube video that happens to be from a group called "Canadian Doctors for Medicare" and there is now conclusive proof of the superiority of the Canadian health care system? You are a real tool and now a new member of the lyrbotomy family.
....lybob Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 What I find amazing is that right after this post bob posted a vid of real doctors, on camera, talking about how they feel their system is better. So if you haven't watched it yet you might not want to or you're going to have to change that line you keep repeating over and over again. Like a Fox News anchor, you seem to be under the impression that your opinion, if stated forcefully enough, constitutes fact. And I think Obama care should be repealed and replaced with a system the extends Medicare to everyone. Otherwise it's the best we're going to get at the moment. I sometimes think people like OC don't understand selection bias, If you ask either Canadian patients who are getting treatment in America or Canadian doctors who are working in America there's a good probability they have a problem with the Canadian Health system, same as if you asked the people who go to Mexico for Cancer treatment what they thought of the cancer treatment they got in America or went to an alternative medical convention and polled them on what they thought of conventional Western medicine.
Rob's House Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 What I find amazing is that right after this post bob posted a vid of real doctors, on camera, talking about how they feel their system is better. So if you haven't watched it yet you might not want to or you're going to have to change that line you keep repeating over and over again. Like a Fox News anchor, you seem to be under the impression that your opinion, if stated forcefully enough, constitutes fact. And I think Obama care should be repealed and replaced with a system the extends Medicare to everyone. Otherwise it's the best we're going to get at the moment. I think the government should give everyone $2 million cash. Then people would have lots of money to spend and that would create economic growth and we'll all be better off. Why can't y'all open your eyes and see that this will work?
3rdnlng Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 I sometimes think people like OC don't understand selection bias, If you ask either Canadian patients who are getting treatment in America or Canadian doctors who are working in America there's a good probability they have a problem with the Canadian Health system, same as if you asked the people who go to Mexico for Cancer treatment what they thought of the cancer treatment they got in America or went to an alternative medical convention and polled them on what they thought of conventional Western medicine. And if you asked any member of the group "Canadian Doctors for Medicare" you would get a resounding endorsement of the Canadian system. Funny how that works.
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 I sometimes think people like OC don't understand selection bias, If you ask either Canadian patients who are getting treatment in America or Canadian doctors who are working in America there's a good probability they have a problem with the Canadian Health system, same as if you asked the people who go to Mexico for Cancer treatment what they thought of the cancer treatment they got in America or went to an alternative medical convention and polled them on what they thought of conventional Western medicine. I asked Steve McQueen about Mexico. No answer, oddly.
B-Man Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 I asked Steve McQueen about Mexico. No answer, oddly. Steve McQueen is too cool to talk to you Jim. .
GG Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 I asked Steve McQueen about Mexico. No answer, oddly. Try Andy Kaufman then.
B-Man Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 One Year Old One-Year-Old Child Left Alone in Occupy D.C. Tent, Network Morning Shows Ignore Story A 13-month-old child was found yesterday morning, unsupervised and wearing only a onesie, in a tent in the Occupy D.C. squatters camp in McPherson Square. To their credit, some Occupiers notified authorities, who arrested a man who showed up later claiming to be the baby's father. That being said, it's just the latest criminal incident which highlights the ongoing problems of the 3-month long "occupation" of an urban square that was never intended for overnight camping. But, of course, the media are doing their darndest to downplay or ignore the story: ABC's Good Morning America, CBS This Morning, and NBC's Today failed to report the incident. The Washington Post placed their 7-paragraph story on page B6. A review of the websites for the ABC, CBS, and NBC affiliate stations in D.C. shows they are not trumpeting the story as significant. Ditto with WTOP.com, the website for the region's all-news radio station. .
IDBillzFan Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 One Year Old One-Year-Old Child Left Alone in Occupy D.C. Tent, Network Morning Shows Ignore Story It should be noted that in spite of the fact that the child was found in his father's tent among all the other Occupy tents, spokespersons for the Occupy Movement said there is no way to confirm if the man who had a tent with all the other Occupy tents was actually a part of the Occupy movement. He simply could have just been a guy with a tent, a baby, and the need to pitch a home in the middle of a protest.
B-Man Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Context-Challenged Media Doesnt Tell Full Story About Obamas Fourth-Quarter Fundraising Posted by John Nolte Jan 12th 2012 Long, long ago, the Associated Press simply decided to stop being objective. Other than the final act of officially declaring their left-wing bias, the AP has done just about everything else required to announce that they are on a crusade, among other things, to ensure Barack Obamas reelection. But even then, you would think credibility would mean something to the AP. Biased or not, no one wants to come off as a hack, but hacky the AP is, especially with respect to todays story about President Obamas fourth-quarter fundraising for his reelection campaign. When you read the APs reporting, its obvious what the AP is up to. The goal is to create the impression that Obama and the DNC represent an unstoppable political juggernaut, that they are unstoppable cash machines firing on all 12 cylinders of competency and popularity: U.S. President Barack Obamas re-election campaign, together with the Democratic National Committee, raised more than $68 million in the fourth quarter of 2011, Obamas campaign manager Jim Messina said on Thursday. Messina told supporters in a video message that 98 percent of the donations were made up of $250 or less, illustrating growing grassroots support for Obama, a Democrat, as he works to hold on to the White House in Novembers election. … The campaign beat its goal of raising $60 million in the final three months of 2011. Obamas fundraising totals dwarf those of Republican front-runner Mitt Romney, whose campaign said on Wednesday it had raised $24 million in the fourth quarter. By hiding the context in this report, the AP intentionally lies through omission to put some wins in Obamas sagging sails. Heres what the AP chose not to report: The contributions exceed the $60 million number floated by campaign officials but represent a small drop-off from the $70.1 million Obama-DNC receipts collected in the previous three months. Of the October-to-December cash, $42 million went to Obamas coffers, with $24 million headed to the DNC a bit less than the $70.4 million raised by the Bush-Cheney-RNC campaigns in late 2003. So Obama/DNC fundraising not only dropped off for the APs Precious One, but without even adjusting for eight years of inflation, President Teleprompter was unable to beat the amount of money raised by the evil Bush/Cheney at this same time during their 2003 reelection effort. And I think we all remember how, at this same time, Bush was being pounded and demonized relentlessly by the corrupt MSM (including the AP) over Iraq. And yet, he raised more money than Obama. How about that. The information above came from Politico, and heres an important nugget of information Politico chose not to include: President Obama has attended twice the number of fundraisers as [as President Bush.] [Obama] attended 58 fundraisers for his reelection campaign since January[.] By comparison, President George W. Bush … attended 29 fundraisers[.] In other words, in order to raise less cash than Bush, Obama had to attend twice as many fundraisers. The MSM is so biased that in order to get the full context of a story potentially damaging to the left, you not only have to cobble together information from different sources, you have to remember that this information is out there. Whether its foreign policy, history, economics, or simple stories such as this one about what should be reported as a disappointing fourth quarter for Obamas reelection efforts, context is Kryptonite to left which is why outlets such as the AP and Politico refuse to go near it. Context-Challenged Media . Edited January 12, 2012 by B-Man
Chef Jim Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 Liberal media at it again youtube.com/watch?v=u5IJQYY9dx4 Couple of things here. First you find one piece on MSNBC that is positive about a Republican and that is proof there is no liberal media bias. Second wouldn't you admit that the original AP piece a perfect example of liberal media bias??
B-Man Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 Liberal media at it again As stated time and time again, your example is a commentator....paid to give his opinion. The AP story he is commenting on (and for that matter, the AP story that I posted last in reply #231) are presented as straight news stories, which are biased by what they incude, and exclude, in order to influence the reader, rather than "report" facts. .
Rob's House Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 Liberal media at it again youtube.com/watch?v=u5IJQYY9dx4 As much as I have to give credit to Lawrence O'Donnell for calling out AP and setting the story straight, this does little if anything to bring the point home. As Chef said, the AP article is a glaring example of liberal bias. Additionally, he even admits how much he would love to point out the "hypocrisy" of limited government conservatives taking advantage of federal perks, which shines the light on a few observations: 1. O'Donnell is admitting that he has a desire to call out these conservatives. I'll also give him credit for being one of the few liberals willing to admit his political point of view, but never the less indicates that he is looking for stories of a particular political slant. That's what initially drew him to this story. 2. This has been touched on in other threads but is worth revisiting. There is NOTHING hypocritical about opposing big government spending projects and then taking advantage of them once enacted. Any argument to the contrary would is obtuse at best. Should a "conservative" rail against government excess and then pass a massive federal entitlement expansion, that would be hypocritical. To oppose and vote against that expansion, but then take advantage of it when you lost the vote and the society decided against your will that this is how we're going to play, is hardly hypocritical. That would be like a football coach opposing the NFL including an instant replay rule, but still using his replay once the league decides against him on the issue. Should he on moral grounds allow his opponent the benefit of instant replay and deny himself the same benefit in the name of consistency?
Buftex Posted January 22, 2012 Posted January 22, 2012 As much as I have to give credit to Lawrence O'Donnell for calling out AP and setting the story straight, this does little if anything to bring the point home. As Chef said, the AP article is a glaring example of liberal bias. Additionally, he even admits how much he would love to point out the "hypocrisy" of limited government conservatives taking advantage of federal perks, which shines the light on a few observations: 1. O'Donnell is admitting that he has a desire to call out these conservatives. I'll also give him credit for being one of the few liberals willing to admit his political point of view, but never the less indicates that he is looking for stories of a particular political slant. That's what initially drew him to this story. 2. This has been touched on in other threads but is worth revisiting. There is NOTHING hypocritical about opposing big government spending projects and then taking advantage of them once enacted. Any argument to the contrary would is obtuse at best. Should a "conservative" rail against government excess and then pass a massive federal entitlement expansion, that would be hypocritical. To oppose and vote against that expansion, but then take advantage of it when you lost the vote and the society decided against your will that this is how we're going to play, is hardly hypocritical. That would be like a football coach opposing the NFL including an instant replay rule, but still using his replay once the league decides against him on the issue. Should he on moral grounds allow his opponent the benefit of instant replay and deny himself the same benefit in the name of consistency? Down boy...down boy! I was just being intellectually dishonest (since that is one of the favorite accusations on the PPP) to bring attention to this "story"...I didn't feel like starting a thread on it. Point #2 is taken, and I agree, and I think Laurence O'Donnell agrees...what made it even a little more interesting, to me anyways, is that O'Donnell and Paul have a long running disdain for one another. Where I give O'Donnell (who I don't particularly care for) credit is that while openly confessing his attraction to a story that would make an adversary look bad, he isn't willing to go there, if it is BS. I think, sometimes, that is the point that is lost in some of these "liberal media bias" attacks. Anyone who follows politics is full of **** if they claim not to have any bias one way or another...but, having bias doesn't mean you have to be dishonest.
Delete This Account Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 And if you asked any member of the group "Canadian Doctors for Medicare" you would get a resounding endorsement of the Canadian system. Funny how that works. funny, that a certain poster here was actually questioning whether any Canadian doctor liked the system and instead was merely lining up to head south. which is it, really? it's got to be one or the other, or at the very least something in the middle. and yet in this pish-for-posh debate one has to be completely and utterly wrong, and the other absolutely pure and right. and yet, you question someone who's actually experienced both the Canadian and American systems. but of course i'm a "liberal" so that makes any of my arguments moot because after all what would i know. gees, get over yourself. i know which system i would prefer, and has worked for me. but what do i know. jw
Alaska Darin Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 funny, that a certain poster here was actually questioning whether any Canadian doctor liked the system and instead was merely lining up to head south. which is it, really? it's got to be one or the other, or at the very least something in the middle. and yet in this pish-for-posh debate one has to be completely and utterly wrong, and the other absolutely pure and right. and yet, you question someone who's actually experienced both the Canadian and American systems. but of course i'm a "liberal" so that makes any of my arguments moot because after all what would i know. gees, get over yourself. i know which system i would prefer, and has worked for me. but what do i know. jw The one where you live in America but go to Canada for medical care?
Juror#8 Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 There is no "liberal media bias," not in traditional news outlets and especially not in cable news. For every Dan Rather, running bs stories about Bush, you had John Stossel on ABC, making bs comments about Clinton, and trumpeting tort reform. For every story slanted in one direction, you'll find another outlet that slants in the opposite direction...enough that it becomes a zero sum game. "Liberal media bias" is the product of a weird and degenerative slippery-slopishness that is now a self-contained entity unto itself. All that crap is just boogeymanism...so that an audience can preemptively tune out a story without ever having to hear the merits.
Magox Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 There is no "liberal media bias," not in traditional news outlets and especially not in cable news. For every Dan Rather, running bs stories about Bush, you had John Stossel on ABC, making bs comments about Clinton, and trumpeting tort reform. For every story slanted in one direction, you'll find another outlet that slants in the opposite direction...enough that it becomes a zero sum game. "Liberal media bias" is the product of a weird and degenerative slippery-slopishness that is now a self-contained entity unto itself. All that crap is just boogeymanism...so that an audience can preemptively tune out a story without ever having to hear the merits. You are one delusional dude.
Recommended Posts