The Dis-information age

[nodoginnafight]

If someone commits fraud and robs you of your money, is it your fault or the guy who robbed you?

 

[manifold]

If someone commits fraud and robs you of your money, is it your fault or the guy who robbed you?

Both. But only one of us is a criminal.

 

[Oldandtired]

What "3 different answers"??? Obama did not "pal around with Bill Ayers," which as I recall were the operating words du jour. They worked together for a brief period of time, and Ayers hosted a gathering to introduce him to Chicago politicians. I have dozens of "friends" that I don't "pal around with." I have even more acquaintances that might pop in and out of my life at any time, but whom I don't consider "friends." The fact that FOX wanted to go after this story like a dog with a bone is a given. And I see some of you are still at it. Any luck?

No Maggie. You are incorreect with your recollection. Fox News never said he palled around with Ayers. Hannity said it, but Hannity is not the news...he is a coomentator with a commentator show.

The news however, siad they were concerned about 3 answers that Obama gave.

First he did not personally know the man.

Then it was discovered that he DID know him.

So then he said, yes I knew him but I never met him.

Then it was revealed that he DID know him and actually spent time with him.

So then he said..."yes I spent time with him, but I thought he was reformed"

So all FOX NEWS....the NEWS...wanted to know was why three different conflicting answewrs.

Why did you not want to know why he said he never knew him, then knew him but never met him, then met him and spent time with him but thought he was reformed?

You were duped maggie...as many were....by the other media citing things Hannity siad...and deflecting from the REAL issue.

I have quickly searched for the actual quotes that were all different, and couldn't find anything. It's what I do. If I'm supposed to take your recollection of something that occurred on FOXNEWS, forget it. I will ask you to consider this, however. If there was such a blatant discrepancy as you point out, then why didn't McCain use Obama's three different versions when he began his twelfth-hour attack campaign where he invoked Bill Ayers all the time? Wouldn't that have sealed it for McCain? Instead, he just looked like sour grapes.

McCain, although a great hero in my eyes and an outstanding public servant.....as I see ANY senator.....was by no means a good campaigner and his handlers were the worst. I do not know why he wnet after Ayers instead of going after the "discrepencies"....

But the fact that you recall Fox News as saying that he "palled around" with ayers means you did not watch FOx news...which is my exact point....The other media did not poiint out the discrepency....they simply talked about the fact that Ayers was a non issue.

I will find links to his 3 explanations....I heard ALL three....from Obama, Axelrod and Burton.

 

[nodoginnafight]

What "3 different answers"??? Obama did not "pal around with Bill Ayers," which as I recall were the operating words du jour. They worked together for a brief period of time, and Ayers hosted a gathering to introduce him to Chicago politicians. I have dozens of "friends" that I don't "pal around with." I have even more acquaintances that might pop in and out of my life at any time, but whom I don't consider "friends." The fact that FOX wanted to go after this story like a dog with a bone is a given. And I see some of you are still at it. Any luck?

No Maggie. You are incorreect with your recollection. Fox News never said he palled around with Ayers. Hannity said it, but Hannity is not the news...he is a coomentator with a commentator show.

The news however, siad they were concerned about 3 answers that Obama gave.

First he did not personally know the man.

Then it was discovered that he DID know him.

So then he said, yes I knew him but I never met him.

Then it was revealed that he DID know him and actually spent time with him.

So then he said..."yes I spent time with him, but I thought he was reformed"

So all FOX NEWS....the NEWS...wanted to know was why three different conflicting answewrs.

Why did you not want to know why he said he never knew him, then knew him but never met him, then met him and spent time with him but thought he was reformed?

You were duped maggie...as many were....by the other media citing things Hannity siad...and deflecting from the REAL issue.

I have quickly searched for the actual quotes that were all different, and couldn't find anything. It's what I do. If I'm supposed to take your recollection of something that occurred on FOXNEWS, forget it. I will ask you to consider this, however. If there was such a blatant discrepancy as you point out, then why didn't McCain use Obama's three different versions when he began his twelfth-hour attack campaign where he invoked Bill Ayers all the time? Wouldn't that have sealed it for McCain? Instead, he just looked like sour grapes.

The "shifting claims" that Obama reportedly made about his association with Ayers has been debunked by non-partisan sources. He never said, he did not know Ayers. This what Obama actually said:

"This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense"

and McCain DID try to hit the "lie" theme in a campaign video:

"Obama's blind ambition. When convenient, he worked with terrorist Bill Ayers. When discovered, he lied. Obama. Blind ambition. Bad judgment."
- McCain campaign video, October 10, 2008

 

[Vanquish]

There was only a short period of time (30 years maybe? 1930-1960) when broadcast journalism could have been even remotely considered "objective". Before that newspapers always leaned to one side or the other, stemming in great part from their evolution from pamphlet printers.

There's really no effective way for anyone to challenge the current journalism stranglehold. Just like there's no way for consumers to fight oil company prices. Fox News has sprung up to bring a different perspective, which is needed, even if you think all they do is sprout lies. The internet is a viable method of disputing facts and dispersing information, but overall the power of the blog is weak compared to the power of the network.

I'd love to think that once true internet and television integration occurs (yes I know the shift by young people has firmly taken root) - meaning when web content is easily browsable on all televisions - we'll have the YouTube political commentator types who we can turn to for news.

We're all operating on this fallacy of "the good old days of objective journalism" - that were a blip and possibly never to return.

 

[MaggieMae]

We can blame media all we want, but I still maintain that people are dumbing themselves down. Every day of my life, I run across some news item where I ask myself "Is that true?" and then I launch a search to find out. I don't sit here and believe the first thing out of someone's mouth or what some op-ed wants me to believe. Yet, according to the latest NBC poll on the health care issue, the results are positively shocking that so few people are actually looking for the truth but would rather simply believe the blatant lies that have been concocted.

NBC poll: Doubts over Obama health plan
NBC poll: Misperceptions abound on president's health overhaul initiative
Tues., Aug 18, 2009
[excerpt]

Damaging misperceptions

One of the reasons why it has become tougher is due to misperceptions about the president’s plans for reform.

Majorities in the poll believe the plans would give health insurance coverage to illegal immigrants; would lead to a government takeover of the health system; and would use taxpayer dollars to pay for women to have abortions — all claims that nonpartisan fact-checkers say are untrue about the legislation that has emerged so far from Congress.

Forty-five percent think the reform proposals would allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing medical care for the elderly.

That also is untrue: The provision in the House legislation that critics have seized on — raising the specter of “death panels” or euthanasia — would simply allow Medicare to pay doctors for end-of-life counseling, if the patient wishes.

URL: NBC poll: Doubts over Obama health plan - White House- msnbc.com

Well, there you go. If you believe anything NBC says you are "mis-informed".

So I presume you're doubting that a poll was even taken? Or that somebody was lying? Interesting. If NBC were going to lie, wouldn't they skew the numbers to favor Obama? You make no sense.

Health Policy

Even FOX has Obama's approval rating still at 53% as of last week. Do they lie?
Obama: Job Ratings

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think the debate over what was actually said, the acceptance that one thing was or was not said in spite of evidence to the contrary, and the inability to accept contrary evidence is just another example of the problems I have described.

 

[MaggieMae]

Unfortunately, I can see this quickly degenerating into "MY hyper-partisan new source is better than YOUR hyper-partisan newsource."

That may be an interesting line of debate for you guys, but not for me. So you guys go ahead and take my thread and turn it into what you all love to turn EVERY OTHER thread into - a hyper-partisan shouting match.

Just do it without me.

With your OP, I really don't know what you expected. There are Fox-watchers and there's everybody else. Maybe next time you should close it by saying "no comments, please."

 

[nodoginnafight]

If someone commits fraud and robs you of your money, is it your fault or the guy who robbed you?

Both. But only one of us is a criminal.

I do not advocate blaming the victim. I encourage caution and due diligence, but when a crime is committed, I believe the fault lies with the criminal.

 

[Oldandtired]

We can blame media all we want, but I still maintain that people are dumbing themselves down. Every day of my life, I run across some news item where I ask myself "Is that true?" and then I launch a search to find out. I don't sit here and believe the first thing out of someone's mouth or what some op-ed wants me to believe. Yet, according to the latest NBC poll on the health care issue, the results are positively shocking that so few people are actually looking for the truth but would rather simply believe the blatant lies that have been concocted.

NBC poll: Doubts over Obama health plan
NBC poll: Misperceptions abound on president's health overhaul initiative
Tues., Aug 18, 2009
[excerpt]

Damaging misperceptions

One of the reasons why it has become tougher is due to misperceptions about the president’s plans for reform.

Majorities in the poll believe the plans would give health insurance coverage to illegal immigrants; would lead to a government takeover of the health system; and would use taxpayer dollars to pay for women to have abortions — all claims that nonpartisan fact-checkers say are untrue about the legislation that has emerged so far from Congress.

Forty-five percent think the reform proposals would allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing medical care for the elderly.

That also is untrue: The provision in the House legislation that critics have seized on — raising the specter of “death panels” or euthanasia — would simply allow Medicare to pay doctors for end-of-life counseling, if the patient wishes.

URL: NBC poll: Doubts over Obama health plan - White House- msnbc.com

Well, there you go. If you believe anything NBC says you are "mis-informed".

So I presume you're doubting that a poll was even taken? Or that somebody was lying? Interesting. If NBC were going to lie, wouldn't they skew the numbers to favor Obama? You make no sense.

Health Policy

Even FOX has Obama's approval rating still at 53% as of last week. Do they lie?
Obama: Job Ratings

ON the most part, no one in the MSM will KNOWINGLY lie as they will completely AND easily lose all credibility.

Instead, many media simply report the truth...but only part of the truth...and as I showed in an earlier example...leaving out certain details can completely change how one judges the story.

 

[manifold]

If someone commits fraud and robs you of your money, is it your fault or the guy who robbed you?

Both. But only one of us is a criminal.

I do not advocate blaming the victim. I encourage caution and due diligence, but when a crime is committed, I believe the fault lies with the criminal.

CAUTION: Hairs about to be split

I belive the blame lies with the criminal, but fault is shared (although not necessarily equally).

 

[nodoginnafight]

Unfortunately, I can see this quickly degenerating into "MY hyper-partisan new source is better than YOUR hyper-partisan newsource."

That may be an interesting line of debate for you guys, but not for me. So you guys go ahead and take my thread and turn it into what you all love to turn EVERY OTHER thread into - a hyper-partisan shouting match.

Just do it without me.

With your OP, I really don't know what you expected. There are Fox-watchers and there's everybody else. Maybe next time you should close it by saying "no comments, please."

I just don't see it as a partisan issue. And I don't like how every single thread seems to degenerate into hyper-partisanship. Obviously people are welcome to say whatever they choose and obviously hyper-partisanship is what brings many of the posters here. But, I realize that post sounded very touchy and maybe I am touchy about it - sorry.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Both. But only one of us is a criminal.

I do not advocate blaming the victim. I encourage caution and due diligence, but when a crime is committed, I believe the fault lies with the criminal.

CAUTION: Hairs about to be split

I belive the blame lies with the criminal, but fault is shared (although not necessarily equally).

Ok, I'm comfortable with pretty fine hair-splitting - maybe I am doing it to. But let's take rape for example. I think when you start talking about what the victim was wearing and suggesting perhaps they share some responsibility .... I think you have victimized that person again.

 

[Otter_Creek]

I wondered who would be first to slant this against their partisan opposites.
Maggie May wins again, in her own one sided mind at least.
idiot

It was going pretty good, now I'll skip to the last page.

 

[Oldandtired]

If someone commits fraud and robs you of your money, is it your fault or the guy who robbed you?

If someone produces a valid ID claiming to be of legal drinking age and that person is allowed in the bar, and the bartender is attracted to that patron and takes her home that night....and has sex with her....and then it is found out she used a fake ID....and insread she was a well developed. mature looking 16 year old......is the bartender liable?

There is a reason I ask it this way...I will explain when you answer....but it is not a set up...it will simply helpo me make my point.

 

[nodoginnafight]

ON the most part, no one in the MSM will KNOWINGLY lie as they will completely AND easily lose all credibility.

Instead, many media simply report the truth...but only part of the truth...and as I showed in an earlier example...leaving out certain details can completely change how one judges the story.

I agree with this completely. But to suggest this only happens with "mainstream media" is wrong in my opinion. The fringe media is even more apt to pull this than the MSM in my opinion.

 

[manifold]

I do not advocate blaming the victim. I encourage caution and due diligence, but when a crime is committed, I believe the fault lies with the criminal.

CAUTION: Hairs about to be split

I belive the blame lies with the criminal, but fault is shared (although not necessarily equally).

Ok, I'm comfortable with pretty fine hair-splitting - maybe I am doing it to. But let's take rape for example. I think when you start talking about what the victim was wearing and suggesting perhaps they share some responsibility .... I think you have victimized that person again.

I would agree with that. For some crimes, the criminal bears all the fault.

But what about a person who leaves their car running while they pop into a convenience store to buy a six-pack, only to come out and find their car has been stolen? Do they not share responsibility at least a little?

 

[Oldandtired]

ON the most part, no one in the MSM will KNOWINGLY lie as they will completely AND easily lose all credibility.

Instead, many media simply report the truth...but only part of the truth...and as I showed in an earlier example...leaving out certain details can completely change how one judges the story.

I agree with this completely. But to suggest this only happens with "mainstream media" is wrong in my opinion. The fringe media is even more apt to pull this than the MSM in my opinion.

Yes...I agree.....it is sad that the MSM does it as well however.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If someone commits fraud and robs you of your money, is it your fault or the guy who robbed you?

If someone produces a valid ID claiming to be of legal drinking age and that person is allowed in the bar, and the bartender is attracted to that patron and takes her home that night....and has sex with her....and then it is found out she used a fake ID....is the bartender liable?

There is a reason I ask it this way...I will explain when you answer....but it is not a set up...it will simply helpo me make my point.

Are underage people EVER allowed into the bar? Did the bartender have any reason to expect that underage people would have already been weeded out? Is the bartender himself expected to check ID's too? Did he check THIS one? Was the phoney ID amatuerish enough to expect that a person whose job it is to verify ID's to recognize it as a forgery? Would the average person look at the girl and have any reason to suspect she may be underage no matter what her ID said?

There are a lot of variables. But I'll agree this may be a tough call.

But didn't you "answer" my question with a question?
I asked mine first - so I'll answer yours AFTER you answer mine (nanny nanny boo boo)
Nah, if the bartender had every reason to expect underage folks would have already been weeded out, if he re-checked her ID and it was very convincing and if there was no other reason for a reasonable person to suspect she might be underage, I'd have a very tough time holding him responsible.

 

[Oldandtired]

If someone commits fraud and robs you of your money, is it your fault or the guy who robbed you?

If someone produces a valid ID claiming to be of legal drinking age and that person is allowed in the bar, and the bartender is attracted to that patron and takes her home that night....and has sex with her....and then it is found out she used a fake ID....is the bartender liable?

There is a reason I ask it this way...I will explain when you answer....but it is not a set up...it will simply helpo me make my point.

Are underage people EVER allowed into the bar? Did the bartender have any reason to expect that underage people would have already been weeded out? Is the bartender himself expected to check ID's too? Did he check THIS one? Was the phoney ID amatuerish enough to expect that a person whose job it is to verify ID's to recognize it as a forgery? Would the average person look at the girl and have any reason to suspect she may be underage no matter what her ID said?

There are a lot of variables. But I'll agree this may be a tough call.

It was assuming all things equal. The bar believed she was of age...thje bar checks ALL ID's at the door....it is assumed by all in the bar that all are at least 21 years of age....

The reason for the scenario...

I watched and listened to Obama, and Pelosi and Reid...and Yes...I heard McCain say it as well....

"those people that were duped intop taking the NINJA loans are victims of the greedy brokers and those that were duped into taking the "teaser rates" were also victims."

WHen in fact....

Those that took the NINJA loans lied on the applications about their income/employment status...AND attaested to it with their signature which is a lie on a sworn affidavit...... and those that took the teaser rates were simply gambling that rates would not go up....and they lost the gamble.

How are they victims?