Thread: Oh my goodness, YES!

Originally Posted by mnealtx

Oh really?

From PEW:
A study by the respected Pew Research Center showed that 40 percent of Fox News stories on Obama in the last six weeks of the campaign were negative. Similarly, 40 percent of Fox News' stories on Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, were negative. On CNN, by contrast, there was a 22-point disparity in the percentage of negative stories on Obama (39 percent) and McCain (61 percent). The disparity was even greater at MSNBC, according to Pew, where just 14 percent of Obama stories were negative, compared to a whopping 73 percent of McCain stories—a spread of 59 points.



Evidently, only if it's FOX that you think is doing the lying.

Claiming to be "fair and balanced" is a funny thing. Fact is, not all sides of every story deserve balanced coverage, so sometimes giving them equal treatment/airtime/etc. *is* a display of bias.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

AL "FOREST GUMP" GORE was never elected to president...THANK GOD FOR THAT ONE .....

Actually there is a pretty strong evidence American people did elect him, but it was up to the supreme court to make the final decision and they picked GW Bush instead.

Technically most of the American people voted for Al Gore, so they did elect him, but the American people don't have the right to elect their president. They can only elect electors of the president, and even with that it's quite likely that the people elected electors who would have elected Al Gore. However the people's appointed and elected elite didn't really care to get to the bottom of this so at the end of the day GW Bush was appointed president.

Originally Posted by gugi

Actually there is a pretty strong evidence American people did elect him, but it was up to the supreme court to make the final decision and they picked GW Bush instead.

That would be....incorrect. Gore was attempting to circumvent FL election law and trying to get recounts ONLY in certain Dem-heavy counties. The SC upheld the FL election law, as they should have.

Originally Posted by gugi

Technically most of the American people voted for Al Gore, so they did elect him, but the American people don't have the right to elect their president. They can only elect electors of the president, and even with that it's quite likely that the people elected electors who would have elected Al Gore. However the people's appointed and elected elite didn't really care to get to the bottom of this so at the end of the day GW Bush was appointed president.

The electors are SUPPOSED to vote the way their state voted - I *think* there have been a couple cases of 'faithless electors' (In fact, I recall one Dem elector offering to sell his vote), but they are (obviously) very rare; I believe there's only been one or two.

Originally Posted by gugi

Actually there is a pretty strong evidence American people did elect him, but it was up to the supreme court to make the final decision and they picked GW Bush instead.

Technically most of the American people voted for Al Gore, so they did elect him, but the American people don't have the right to elect their president. They can only elect electors of the president, and even with that it's quite likely that the people elected electors who would have elected Al Gore. However the people's appointed and elected elite didn't really care to get to the bottom of this so at the end of the day GW Bush was appointed president.

WITHOUT going over it again too much. the reason gore dropped out was because he was loosing votes right and left in the recounts. the accounting firm of delot and touche had the final count many months after it was settled and it was not even close for gore. he was just so upset that what he thought was to be his for the asking did not happen. he was groomed for that job from the start. i am from tennessee and al spent less than 30 days a year here while growning up. to hear him tell it, he was born and bred and raised in carthage, tn. just drive into that little town and ask about him and you may just get shot at for the mention of his name...

Originally Posted by gugi

I seem to remember the American people electing Al Gore as a president. And then electing GW Bush as a president, and then BH Obama...
And some insisting representative democracy a.k.a. republic is absolutely necessary to rein in the American people....

Do you wish to amend your statement above?

No, not at all.
Gore was almost the most successful voter fraud scam in our history.
The real and great scam was Obama, but we have now become wise to their little former secret weapon ACORN. Too bad, so sad.

And of course, no, Gore was not elected president.
And not all Americans can detect the liars, and have been dooped by them, some of them I have talked to personally have been dooped for their entire life, decades, and are just now kinda sorta beginning to wake up and see what is going on, finally seeing that their false promises are lies and a scam to entrench themselves in power and become obscenely wealthy elitists.
It is nice though to see some like Hitllary get stuck with the miserable job that she has.

Originally Posted by mnealtx

The electors are SUPPOSED to vote the way their state voted - I *think* there have been a couple cases of 'faithless electors' (In fact, I recall one Dem elector offering to sell his vote), but they are (obviously) very rare; I believe there's only been one or two.

'supposed' is a nice word, it actually varies from state to state and at the end of the day they can vote as they please and subsequently can be penalized by their state if applicable, but that does not change the result of their already cast vote.

I know it's the easy way to just ignore the strong statement I made and instead go into disputing the one that I hedged intentionally. In case you missed it it's about the American people. Here are the official results Federal Elections 2000: 2000 Presidential Popular Vote Summary Table

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

And not all Americans can detect the liars, and have been dooped by them

Actually the claim you were making was that most can, which is evidenced in the popularity of Fox.... This has to do with hard numbers. Most is a very precise term with very serious consequences

Originally Posted by gugi

'supposed' is a nice word, it actually varies from state to state and at the end of the day they can vote as they please and subsequently can be penalized by their state if applicable, but that does not change the result of their already cast vote.

I know it's the easy way to just ignore the strong statement I made and instead go into disputing the one that I hedged intentionally. In case you missed it it's about the American people. Here are the official results Federal Elections 2000: 2000 Presidential Popular Vote Summary Table

too bad we don't elect presidents by popular vote, then we could have had Forest Gump in the white house....

Originally Posted by gugi

'supposed' is a nice word, it actually varies from state to state and at the end of the day they can vote as they please and subsequently can be penalized by their state if applicable, but that does not change the result of their already cast vote.

26 states (and DC) require the electors to match the state vote, 24 don't. Many states have various punishments for faithless electors. Seeing as electors tend to be long-standing members of their respective parties, the chance of a faithless elector in one of the 24 non-required states is pretty slim.

Originally Posted by gugi

I know it's the easy way to just ignore the strong statement I made and instead go into disputing the one that I hedged intentionally. In case you missed it it's about the American people. Here are the official results Federal Elections 2000: 2000 Presidential Popular Vote Summary Table

Ok, and? The national popular vote doesn't matter - only the popular vote for each state (except Nebraska and Maine - they do proportional by district, so two votes go by state popular and the rest by district popular).

To address your "ignore the strong statement" comment, I will repeat what I said, above, and expand upon it slightly so that it is clear.

The SC (properly, IMO) held up the constraints of the Florida election laws in regards to the timeline for certifying the election.

Originally Posted by mnealtx

Oh really?

From PEW:
A study by the respected Pew Research Center showed that 40 percent of Fox News stories on Obama in the last six weeks of the campaign were negative. Similarly, 40 percent of Fox News' stories on Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, were negative. On CNN, by contrast, there was a 22-point disparity in the percentage of negative stories on Obama (39 percent) and McCain (61 percent). The disparity was even greater at MSNBC, according to Pew, where just 14 percent of Obama stories were negative, compared to a whopping 73 percent of McCain stories—a spread of 59 points.



Evidently, only if it's FOX that you think is doing the lying.

That would really be a relevant post if it had anything to do with facts. I said, which you even quoted:

Originally Posted by commiecat

I'm okay with news having an opinion. I'm not okay when the news lies about the facts just to support their opinion.

It doesn't really bother me that people have opinions. News programs and papers have always made it clear what candidates they endorse. What bothers me is when they intentionally lie to either push their own agenda, or slander the opposition. I think FOX does this all too often.

For the record I watch about 30 minutes of the Today Show and then get most of my news from aggregate sites and the BBC while at work.