Be Careful Out There:

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

Mike Holmes wrote:

So you basically have four categories of people, for the sake of this discussion:

1. Party Liners - Those who are already convinced to vote party line. For these people, the media doesn't matter, because what they read or see either goes against what they believe (cons rail then against the media), or the media is preaching to the choir.

2. Media Insensitive - Those who don't pay any attention to the media, and who, therefore, aren't affected by it.

3. Intelligent Swayable - Those people who might go either way, who could be swayed by the media in theory. These people who are willing to think through issues are also smart enough to understand the media bias, and include it in their analysis of which candidate for which to vote.

4. Dumb Swayable - those who are on the fence, and who the media can sway with their biased arguments.


It's this last category that are the ones who are affected by the media bias. My supposition is that this represents a relatively small proportion of the voting populace. Enough to sway an election? Well, sure, in the right circumstances, where things are close enough.

But that's the media's right. Free speech and all. We as the populace are free to reject a media outlet if it lies or otherwise prevaricates. As many have done with the NYT, for instance. An outlet who would argue that they should not be unseated by a few bad acts. But the fact that they are being unseated gives me confidence that, in fact, the public has very high standards for truth.

Bias, we accept, including sins of omission. Because, again, that's unavoidable. But we are, generally, smart enough to see through the media. Trained as dilligently as we are from an early age by Madison Avenue to see through BS.

If those dumb swayable people weren't swayed by the media, they'd be swayed by something else as insidious. Call that the "slop" in democracy. Alongisde the relatively uninformed voter. If you want to regulate that only informed people get to vote... well... who decides what informed means? That's going to be subject to a lot of bias as well.

I think it's unavoidable. And, yet, survivable.

Mike

Great analysis. I think I only disagree with the importance and size of the "Dumb Swayable." I have long believed that most elections are decided by the "Dumb Swayable", because the evidence exists that the "Mushy Middle" have very little understanding of, and pay very little attention to politics in general. (I just read an article a week ago that indicated this.)

My opinion is, the Media represent Asyemetric warfare on various principles that I believe are essential to preserving freedom and life in this country. They have far more impact as a result of stories they refuse to cover than they do over stories they do cover.

I also look at a lot of news sources. I occasionaly peruse DU, Daily Kos, Politico, and HuffPo, but I look at far more Right wing Web sites, like Atlas Shrugs, Ace of Spades, Power and Control ,Astute Bloggers, etc.

I see stories that never get covered in the Media that the other 99% of the population look at.

Despite efforts among various blogs to spike the story, I have not yet heard a reasonable explanation concerning Obama's Birth Certificate.
I have seen evidence that Indicates Obama's father is NOT Barack Obama Sr, but is instead someone else, possible a man named Frank Marshall Davis. Obama certainly LOOKS like Frank Marshall Davis, as opposed to Barack Sr.

These are just a couple of examples. The News blackout extends to Anti-Jewish movements throughout Europe, Islamization of Europe, the current Fauxtography in Gaza, the role of Prominent Democrats involved in the current Fiscal mess, the Campaign finance fraud, the Foreign Money involvement, Acorn and other voter fraud, etc.

Both Barack AND Michelle Obama have their LAW licenses suspended.
Is none of this stuff News Worthy ?

They do much damage while claiming to be honestly covering the news. To paraphrase the New York Times, "All the news we see fit to print ! "


David

Mike Holmes
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm

Post by Mike Holmes »

Funny, but though the sites I visit are far more MSM than those you cite, somehow I have learned the facts behind almost all of the stories you cite as being buried. Well, truth be told, I only heard about the birth certificate issue in general terms, and not that the issue was that his father was possibly misattributed (I heard that the issue was that he had potentially renounced his citizenship by some technicality). And I hadn't heard about the license thing... do you have a site I could go to read up on that? What was the suspension for?

In fact I see stories all the time in the MSM that some side or another say the MSM is burying. Oh, they might get smaller headlines, less lines, or even a positive spin. But I see them.

Here's a Chicago Times article about the Obama Birth Certificate affair: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... 8812.story

Islamization of Europe? Washington Times: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... uestion-i/

Every article about Gaza includes an "And, oh yes, they're still shelling Israel, too, I guess."

Huffington claims that it's both the Dems and Repubs behind the current crisis, but, oh yeah, she's conservative, she can't be counted as MSM. Ann Coulter, too. Same with the federalist journal, I suppose...

How about Bloomberg? They have a TV station here where I live: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... st_hassett

Hannity and Colmes had on some democrat at one point that actually admitted to having been part of the cause of the mortgage problem. Sorry, I don't have a cite for the show, but it was about a month before the election. In fact I believe that's been a mantra for that show for months now. Same with Limbaugh.

So, only the very few conservative outlets are all putting out the story, right? The liberal ones, at least, are burying it? Well, there are republicans who were in on the same legislation that set up the situation with Fanne Mae and Freddie Mac, too. It's really only in the interest of the conservative outlets to shout, "They Dems caused it!" Since it's only partially true.

But, in any case, it's not hard to find information on the subject from a variety of outlets.

ACORN and voter fraud? My local liberal rag ran this: http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/29565944.html

Oh, opeds don't count either?

Googling news for "ACORN Voter fraud" gives a ton of hits: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q= ... 1&ie=UTF-8

I have a friend who lives in Columbus, OH, and so that's a story I've been watching for quite a while now. Both sides in OH have rancorous claims against each other, and have for a long time now.

Campaign finance brings up a zillion articles on either side.


The "mushy middle," even if they were given all the facts, doesn't want to read all of the facts - or any of them. They're not the "dumb swayable" crowd, mostly, they're the "media insensitive" crowd who just don't care enough to follow the news. Yeah, sure, they might be swayed by the one MSM media comment that they accidentally hear. Just as likely they'll be swayed by Joe in the next assembly line over who swears that Obama is a terrorist.

If they're taking enough time to actually get the news, there's a good chance they've got an inkling of intelligence, and can find what they need to know. Not all, no, but most.

We'll probably have to agree to disagree on that.

Mike

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Campaign finance brings up a zillion articles on either side.
Well yes. And print is on the decline and TV is falling because people would like to "bring up" what interests them instead of getting spoon fed.

But for now the spoon feeders have a lot of power.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

You think Huffington is a conservative.

Post by TDPerk »

Huffington claims that it's both the Dems and Repubs behind the current crisis, but, oh yeah, she's conservative, she can't be counted as MSM.
Epic fail.

She is extreme left wing, and has been for a decade or so.

You also think Anthropomorphic Global Warming ™ (I'm sorry, human caused climate change*) is real.

Why should anyone give you the time of day?

*Where will they move the goalposts next? The world wonders.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

Mike Holmes
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm

Post by Mike Holmes »

Um... Perk... Huffington was, at one point a Republican (married to one, at least, even if he did turn out to be bisexual), and spouted conservative rhetoric. Then she did an abrupt left turn, you're right, but I'm old enough to recall her conservative days. Some might say she's politically complex, but we won't dwell on that.

But let's give you your point - she's a raving liberal, fine. So, in fact, we have an example of, if not a MSM outlet, at least a liberal outfit with a story about the democrat involvement. Thanks for making my point for me. Dave could argue that she doesn't count because she used to rail against dems all the time or something. But the overall evidence is that what he says isn't available is, in fact, available, from a variety of sources. QED.

Oh, yes, and I, in fact, am on record on this board in several places saying that I do not buy into AGW. Perhaps your mistake is that I am not raving that the AGW side is crazy, and assuming that means that I must agree with them? Who knows, but you're obviously not reading very closely.

So... who is possessed of the epic fail?

In any case, I'll still respect your posts, even if there are mistakes in them, because, unlike you, I'm able to consider other people's points of view rationally. Instead of dismissing anyone who I percieve to have an opinion that's different than mine.

Mike

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

Mike Holmes wrote:Funny, but though the sites I visit are far more MSM than those you cite, somehow I have learned the facts behind almost all of the stories you cite as being buried. Well, truth be told, I only heard about the birth certificate issue in general terms, and not that the issue was that his father was possibly misattributed (I heard that the issue was that he had potentially renounced his citizenship by some technicality). And I hadn't heard about the license thing... do you have a site I could go to read up on that? What was the suspension for?

In fact I see stories all the time in the MSM that some side or another say the MSM is burying. Oh, they might get smaller headlines, less lines, or even a positive spin. But I see them.

Here's a Chicago Times article about the Obama Birth Certificate affair: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... 8812.story


I do have a web site that you can go to to read up on it. Several in fact, though I think they have rolled over so much that it might be difficult to find the relevant stories.

I followed your link to the Chicago Tribune, yes, i'm familiar with this story, but it is only mentioning a couple of the 22 lawsuits which have been filed to force Obama to release his birth certificate.

I will see if I can wade through a few website's archives and find you some information. Atlas Shrugs had a LARGE section on the Birth Certificate thing.


David

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

Pamela Geller is right. Google DID sandbox her. Originally you could type in "Obama's Birth Certificate", and her website was at the top of the list. Now, you have to specificy "Atlas Shrugs".

This is just one piece of the story.

Any case, here is a link.


http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atla ... usive.html



David

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

Here's one from Astute Bloggers.


http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/searc ... ertificate


David

Mike Holmes
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm

Post by Mike Holmes »

As I said, I'd read about the birth certificate issue, at least to some extent. The one that I really had heard nothing about, and was asking for links regarding, was the license suspension issue. Or do these links also include that?

Mike

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

Mike Holmes wrote:As I said, I'd read about the birth certificate issue, at least to some extent. The one that I really had heard nothing about, and was asking for links regarding, was the license suspension issue. Or do these links also include that?

Mike
Oh, sorry. I get distracted. Let me find that.

David

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

This is not the original story I saw, but it appears to contain the essential details. It will get you started. Searches on "Obama" anything are overwhelming.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atla ... le-ob.html



David


link edited because I found a better one.

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Post by TDPerk »

Um... Perk... Huffington was, at one point a Republican (married to one, at least, even if he did turn out to be bisexual), and spouted conservative rhetoric.
So.

For a decade or more she's said the diametric opposite.

What's your defense, that she doesn't really believe anything she says?
So... who is possessed of the epic fail?
You are, bringing up obfuscatory facts which address no point I've made, and which facts in fact I've already made allusions to because the support my claim--she's no conservative.

Arianna Huffington is either a scam artist or a flaming leftard--not a conservative as you've claimed.
Oh, yes, and I, in fact, am on record on this board in several places saying that I do not buy into AGW. Perhaps your mistake is that I am not raving that the AGW side is crazy, and assuming that means that I must agree with them? Who knows, but you're obviously not reading very closely.
Again, the epic fail is yours. The AGW side is crazy, or ignorant, or evil. Their means are mendacious, their goals are at best crippling and at worst genocidal.

They should not be given any respect.

You beclown yourself to write otherwise of them.

The polar bears are fine, the sea ice is undiminished, CO2 is consistently centuries in lagging actual warming, and no AGW climate model as yet has the mathematical validity to predict the recent past from known data.

Your emperor is buck naked, clothed only in the dark side of the Force.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Tell you what Mike,

Post by TDPerk »

I'll bet you $1,000.00 that no current AGW model accurately predicts the global temperature to within +/- 0.1 degC over the next ten years, without internally inconsistent, ad hoc tweaks to the data driving the model to coincidence.

Bet to settle on Jan. 08, 2018.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

ravingdave wrote:Here's one from Astute Bloggers.


http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/searc ... ertificate


David
I used to write for them until I had a falling out with the owner. An interesting guy.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

alexjrgreen
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

ravingdave wrote:Both Barack AND Michelle Obama have their LAW licenses suspended.
You can find their status here https://www.iardc.org/ardcroll.asp by searching for a Last Name of "obama".

Michelle's "court ordered inactive status" is explained here http://www.illinoisbar.org/Association/8-16b.htm in the section headed "Fees raised for attorneys out of state or inactive"
[Illinois Supreme Court] Rule 770, which covered voluntary transfer to inactive status, has been abolished.
...
At the same time, the Supreme Court transferred to the ARDC administrator the responsibility of deciding whether to approve written requests for assumption of inactive status.
...
An attorney whose request for inactive status is approved by the administrator, and who pays the $70 fee, "shall no longer be eligible to practice law or hold himself or herself out as being authorized to practice law" in Illinois.
Prior to June 29 1999, an attorney had to petition the Illinois Supreme Court to become inactive. This process has now been delegated to the ARDC administrator.
Ars artis est celare artem.

Post Reply