Michale.....

- This particular organisation is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who has a history of running politically motivated organisations in many countries around the world. He has had secret meetings with PMs, Presidents and pushed his Conservative agenda, which he does not hide, in many countries around the world.
- This particular organisation's current President, Roger Ailes, was a full time political consultant to Republican candidates during the 60s, 70 and 80s. He worked with Bush on the 1988 and 1992 campaigns.
- This particular organisation has many many pundits who actually were affiliated with or even represented in Congress the Republican party. In fact, many Republican party members become 'contributors' to the network when they retire.
- The polling outfit used by this particular organisation is run by a guy called 'Scott Rasmussen' who makes no qualms about his Conservative views on his site. His polls also skewed 4.6% Republican in 2008, and around 5% Republican in 2012 (TBD) in the EC.
- The most watched programme on this particular network, based on factual viewing figures, is the Bill O'Reilly show. What is O'Reilly's political affiliation? He was a registered Republican from 1994-2000, only changing this when it was revealed in the media.
- Many documentaries have come out with evidence that Fox presenters are told to report certain subjects in a certain way (i.e. be biased).
- A 2007 study looked at the introduction of Fox News into local U.S. markets between 1996 and 2000, and found that in the 2000 presidential election "Republicans gained 0.4 to 0.7 percentage points in the towns that broadcast Fox News". The study's estimates "imply that Fox News convinced 3 to 28 percent of its viewers to vote Republican, depending on the audience measure"

Facts>Observations any day of the week. Observations, by their very nature, are subject to sample bias.

Oh I understand. I see it on Fox every day. Just that I actually read much of the MSM and I don't see it. And I also don't believe what Fox (or Rush, who says the same thing frequently) tells me I'm supposed to believe every day.

But hey I'm different, I generally base my views and opinions on facts...

What part of "The MSM is in the bag for OBAMA" did you not understand???

As far as Gore?? Don't EVEN get me started on that crazed sex-poodle con artist...

Michale.....

Right exactly. And you may not realise it but your own observations (like mine) are heavily biased by the news networks and things you read. So, even if you don't realise it, you are being influenced by Fox in this regard - since you have admitted that Fox is your favoured network for news coverage (although you also state you read others).

This is why facts and factual arguments are much better than 'observations'. What you are saying is nothing more than rhetoric and opinion - 'observations' fall under these categories and do not fall under 'fact'.

Let me give you an analogy: say there is a news network that millions of people watch and it covers 'Afghani Kill teams' 24/7 for weeks on end. However, since you don't watch this, you never end up 'observing' this and remain stuck on your Fox News created agenda; on the other hand someone watching this news network will 'observe' the exact opposite - that news is saturated by coverage of this and completely ignores Abu Ghraib! Hence the flaw in using 'observations' to judge reality, as different people will create different 'realities' in their heads.

Essentially this analogy fits Fox perfectly as no news network in America selectively picks what it will cover more than Fox does. And it covers it from the same angle with the same rhetoric over and over again, hammering home their propaganda (hats off to them, they are very good at this).

Until you recognise this, it is YOU who will always be denying reality.

Nope.. It's the evidence of my own observations...

How else do you explain the media feeding frenzy that was Abu Ghraib and the virtually NOTHING about the Afghani Kill Teams.

The ONLY logical explanation that fits the facts is that the MSM is in the bag for Obama...

You can deny it all you want.. But, as usual, you are simply denying reality...

Michale....

Again: completely and utter bull-crap. This is rhetoric sold by Fox that you have bought hook line and sinker. It is the usual Fox crap, repeat it enough times and people will start to believe it. The 'war' against the 'liberal media'. Basically journalism of the lowest level (as I referred to in today's column) not based on fact, or reality but opinion and rhetoric.

You forget that, for example, when Bush ran in both 2000 and 2004 the media as a whole ran a tonne of bullshit against both Gore and Kerry (like the infamous Al Gore 'I invented the internet' made up nonsense). But since you watch Fox and believe what it tells you, you won't have seen any of this.

Again, that's my point..

The MSM just LOVED to go after the Presidency when it was a Bush in the White House..

Now that we have Obama???

Not so much...

No one can deny this.... At least not rationally and/or logically...

Michale....

This is the problem when you try to portray YOUR view of the world or YOUR view of the 'left' on to the actual world/'left'.

Yea... It's called 'reality'... You might want to try it some time. :D

Anyone who doesn't believe that the vast majority of the MSM is in the bag for Obama is either delusional, ignorant or simply Left-Biased..

I would wager that ya know a LOT about Abu Ghraib... I would further wager that you know comparatively NOTHING about the Afghani kill teams..

Now, why do you think that is??

We know TONS of information about Valerie Plame.. Comparatively speaking, we know NOTHING about Benghazi...

Again.. Why do you think that is??

Michale....

On the other hand, I'm often wrong about such things. I didn't think Romney had a chance at the nomination.

What does that mean at this point, when he's not running for anything? If people try to get him to run for a third term, I certainly won't be among them. I certainly have different opinions from his on various points of policy.

I decided when he extended the Bush tax cuts that I wouldn't campaign for him this year, and I didn't. I did some GOTV for Elizabeth Warren, which may have added some votes for Obama as well. I voted for him again. But I didn't go to New Hampshire this time, which I probably would have if I had been more enthusiastic.

That's what you do when one major party is clearly better than the other. You support candidates from the better one, but vary your level of support of different politicians according to (among other things) their actions while in office.

By starting at his actual point (rookie mistake in negotiating) of $250k it is far more likely they will compromise to $500k or $1m. I think this is probably the most likely outcome of the negotiations sadly.

I would personally end the tax cuts for those earning >$100k. Maybe even lower. The idea that someone earning $150k is struggling is laughable. I wouldn't even call that person middle-class.

America has a massive national debt and a massive deficit. Giving tax cuts to people earning $100k-250k isn't going to help close this.

Then of course, there's the military. Don't get me started on what I'd do with that. I think between reasonable tax rates on those earning >$100k and military cuts you could get your deficit down to close to $0 in a short space of time.

If only. What we "accomplish" is electing right-wing radicals.

That's all I wanted to hear.. :D

"Thank You..."
-Murphy, ROBOCOP

:D

Michale....

Followed by:
Because he's a change from the incompetence of the Obama Administration..

Lolol you crack me up sometimes! It is amazing to hear you say this considering no matter how much goading I gave you you could not bring up or discuss Obama or Romney policies on here. I think I asked you to name a policy hundreds of times and you just fall back to the rhetoric of 'he is incompetent' - which suggest to mean you've just been brainwashed by Fox et al.

Is it a large enough red line that, if crossed, would cause you to actively campaign and/or advocate AGAINST Obama??
If not, does such a red line exist??
If so, what is it??

Sure I would advocate against Obama. But that doesn't mean I would advocate for Republicans. Nor regret supporting Obama. Because I DO believe in POLICY. And the Republican policy on taxes is way way way way way way worse than the WORST Democratic policy on taxes. This is the problem with how radical and crazy Republicans are just now, they are not a viable alternative to anyone who is moderate or reasonable at all. Their economic policies would drive America and the World back into recession. I believe I've made my views and evidence of this pretty clear on here, including a couple of articles.

There is always the potential, of course, that Republicans show themselves in the next few years to be more moderate and reasonable on taxes and deficit reduction. I won't be holding my breath though since, if they were reasonable, reversing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy wouldn't even be an issue.... They'd first have to ditch the radical right Tea Party and Libertarian elements of their party that control most of their agenda. I don't see that happening soon, especially since they kept the House (despite losing the popular House vote). Losing the House would've been the only thing that awakened them to reality. Now I think they'll go more crazy...

I am curious though.. You have already conceded that Obama extending the Bush Tax Cuts is a "red line" of sorts for you...

Is it a large enough red line that, if crossed, would cause you to actively campaign and/or advocate AGAINST Obama??

If not, does such a red line exist??

If so, what is it??

Enquiring minds want to know.. :D

Michale...

Because he's a change from the incompetence of the Obama Administration..

You yourself admitted that you had no idea what he was going to do once elected.

Just like I had no idea that Obama was going to be such a bad leader....

But I've already gotten a lot of what I wanted to see. And in all likelihood, will see more.

As long as you can live with a President that, when it comes to CT policies, is more Bush then Bush...... Well, if yer happy, then I'm happy.. :D

Michale

Why'd you support Romney then?

You yourself admitted that you had no idea what he was going to do once elected.

Nobody did as I don't think he mentioned any specifics the entire campaign.

The only thing you accomplish BY supporting liberals who don't do what you want is you will never truly get what you want.

But I've already gotten a lot of what I wanted to see. And in all likelihood, will see more.

-David

I could ask you the same about the other party,

That's why I don't support Partys. I support policies.. :D When Democrats push a policy I agree with, I support it to the hilt...

but instead, I'll answer as I think this is a really excellent question.

I have my moments.. :D

The only thing you accomplish by not supporting the best liberals we have is electing conservatives.

Not true.. The only thing you accomplish BY supporting liberals who don't do what you want is you will never truly get what you want..

Sure, in the short term, more conservatives get elected. But, in the long term, you show future liberal candidates that you mean what you say and cannot be steamrolled by Party loyalty...

Apparently ya'all are all about quantity at the expense of quality???

By being this way, you guarantee you will never have the leadership you want..

Michale...

Well put dsws! And it doesn't hurt if you can gain the support of as much of the public as possible.

Gay rights advocates have done an outstanding job, for example, with everyone across the board.

-David

Nope I live in a world of facts. Need I remind you again:

2012 Presidential election Jewish vote = Obama 69%, Romney 30%

Is this the reaction you'd expect to a President who 'through Israel under the bus' or whatever crap Fox is peddling? Or perhaps, just maybe, Fox is full of it. If this statistic doesn't convince you which one of us is living in a 'fantasy world' regarding Israel, I give up trying.

I'll remind you of this and watch you spin it when Obama does the same thing about Bush's Tax Cuts :D

Real Obama has done no such things.

Bullshit... You're living in a fantasy world again...

Joshua, care to chime in??? :D

Michale.....

In 2008 Obama received the backing of the top Corporations in America; in 2012 they abandoned him to back 'Mr Corporation' 47% -guy.

In this sense 2012 was a completely different election than 2008 in that Obama owes his grass-roots supporters considerably more now than back then.

It is for this reason I believe he will actually, finally put his foot down - we will see over the deficit negotiations.

But I could never agree with a politician who would treat Israel as Obama has treated Israel and who would allow Iran time to finish nuclear weapons..

Again you refer to 'fake Obama' made up by the Republicans. Real Obama has done no such things.

I could ask you the same about the other party, but instead, I'll answer as I think this is a really excellent question.

In a two-party system, you don't move the goal posts by not supporting candidates. Republicans have demonstrated this admirably over the past 30 years.

You move the goal posts by putting the most liberal candidates you can in office and then putting pressure on them to support who brought them to the dance. Then you work to keep electing better and better candidates.

The only thing you accomplish by not supporting the best liberals we have is electing conservatives.

Which is why I'm guessing you're proposing this strategy :)

-David

If Republicans had better ideas, maybe they'd be worthy of support.

So, no matter how much Obama tramples on your ideals and principles, you will support him because you believe that Republicans are worse...

Hmmmmmmm

Then let me ask you. Where is Obama's incentive to actually improve and do better??

If you (and all the people like you) are going to support Democrats, no matter how bad they screw ya'all over, there is actually NO incentive for them to do anything else...

Michale.....

It makes sense to prepare most for contingencies where your preparedness (or lack thereof) matters most. Mitt Romney is now irrelevant, hooray. So I have no problem with him not being prepared for this contingency. Pretty much all his preparedness for events beyond the election should have been focused on the possible transition to his hypothetical administration.

I will say it again.

I support what I believe to be the best alternative.

If Republicans had better ideas, maybe they'd be worthy of support.

But they don't have any ideas these days. They're pretty much obsessed with things like Obama's birth certificate, what a Muslim socialist Obama is, that Obama left people in Benghazi to die, or whatever the latest Rush Limbaugh conspiracy is.

In other words ... not just negative attacks ... but outright insane negative attacks.

To be honest, I'm not sure I'd trust these types of Republicans with being able to make toast, much less run a country.

If Republicans didn't have an unlimited amount of money to spend, I think Obama would likely have won with 80-90% of the vote.

-David

We agree on that 1000%...

But I could never agree with a politician who would treat Israel as Obama has treated Israel and who would allow Iran time to finish nuclear weapons..

At least with me, there are lines I will not cross, regardless of Party affiliation...

Once again, I am likely alone in that...

Michale.....

Lol I have been telling you this for months on here, in particular that Obama has governed from a centre-right position, but you (and everyone else on the right) just ignores this because it's much easier to call him a socialist/communist/whatever-made-up-thing-is-trending since it's much easier to run against 'fake Obama' than real Obama...

The reality is it is very very unlikely you will find a politician who has the same views on you on almost every issue. That's why the 'best fit' approach to selecting your candidate makes the most sense...

Yea, I know...

Actually believing in things like principles and integrity.........

Yea, naive is my middle name...

"Mine's Cornelius. You tell anyone, I'll kill you."
-Bruce Willis, THE LAST BOYSCOUT

:D

Funny thing is, when I was growing up, that's what Liberals seemed to believe in..

Nowadays, they are pale mirror images of the Conservatives they despise...

Michale......

Aside from that, I doubt you will find any politician or leader who exactly resembles every single thing you believe in. If you're waiting for that person you might win a prize as 'most naive person in the world'!

How many times does Obama have to break promises (Gitmo, rendition, torture, summary executions) before ya say enough is enough??

Or is the Party line more important than anything else???

Michale......

I always thought he should have made financial reform his #1 priority. Before healthcare.

Ya'all gave him a pass on those.

Huh?

Yunno, it's really not clear what you're going for here, Michale.

Whenever you say "y'all" it usually means some mythical leftie that doesn't exist.

Just because we vote for and supported Obama over Romney doesn't mean he's the "messiah" you seem to think everyone sees him as.

It just means we think he was a much better alternative than the opposition.

-David

I don't know how many times we go through this on here. It seems like you have selective short term memory issues. At least once a week we go through this dance and right at the next week we're back to square one in the routine where you seem to think we won't criticise Obama... It's kinda boring Michale.

Ya'all gave him a pass on those..

So, if Obama DOES compromise on the deficit deal, why would I believe you wouldn't give him a pass again???

Michale.....

OK.. Good.. That's a red line.... We'll see how it plays out..

Now, let's look at the LAST 4 years...

Any mistakes...???

Michale.....

Michty nailed my big one. Obama has a strong negotiating hand after the election. I want to see him play it. Not compromise it away from the get go just to get a deal (see healthcare reform & previous "grand bargain" capitulation).

So far I'm hopeful. I was glad to hear him say he'd veto any proposal that didn't include a tax hike for those making more than $250,000.

-David

And you refuse to talk about the alleged "real ones"...

Care to enlighten me?? :D

Michale.....

You mean we don't buy into birtherism? Or that Obama is a socialist Muslim? Or that Obama left people in Benghazi to die?

I think Obama has many faults. But you seem to prefer talking about his fictional ones.

-David

Here's the issue ...

There are e-mails. BTW, the CNN link I sent had the actual e-mails from your Reuters article.

Now the e-mails show Email #1) someone reporting that there is an attack, #2) someone reporting that the attack is over, and #3) someone saying that the embassy claimed Ansar al Sharia claimed responsibility on Facebook/Twitter.

From these e-mails, the amazing thing is that you get:

it was obvious to anyone that Obama et al left people to die because of a re-election campaign

Reuters never said "Obama left people to die".

I don't even know if Fox went that far. But to you, it's obvious.

We'll see what the investigation has to say. I kind of doubt that they'll say "Obama left people to die".

Oh, but that's right ... the commission is part of the liberal conspiracy. So they would never say that.

Sounds more like you have some Obama issues to work through :)

-David

Lol once again no. It's just that when we do fault Obama it will be for ACTUAL faults not stuff that we made up or saw on FNC or a lunatic conspiracy theory or blaming him for a terrorist attack...

Like, for example, if Obama goes ahead and extends the Bush tax-cuts for millionaires or caves to the Republicans (again) in the next few weeks you bet I'm going to be on here moaning about him...

The difference between myself and ya'all is that I *CAN* be objective.

Ya'all have proven time and time again that ya'all simply CAN"T be objective about Obama's faults..

Hell, ya'all even refuse to admit that Obama *HAS* faults..

It doesn't get more biased than that...

Michale.....

I see that now you have done with your abuse of the word 'fact' that you have turned your attention to the word 'objective'! Damn you and your word abuse! ;)

Considering you have stated a thousand times on here about how much you hate Obama and he personally let you down (etc etc), you might want to consider that this does not in anyway whatsoever make you 'objective'. Again this is an example of you forming an opinion and ignoring all evidence counter to this opinion, while elevating and exaggerating 'evidence' that supports it...

BTW- You loved the birther non-sense! I also remember you going on for pages and pages about how Obama should release his birth certificate.

Of course I loved it.. Just as ya'all loved Abu Ghraib, Iraq and all the other clubs that ya'all used to use to beat Bush and the GOP over the head with... :D

If you didn't believe it, why did you keep asking for him to release his birth certificate?

Because there were doubts. And "the most transparent administration in history" should not have any qualms about erasing doubts, no??

Why hide it if there is nothing to hide??

I believe that was YA'ALL's mantra during the Bush years, right??

Ain't it pesky how these past facts come up and totally negate any pro-Obama argument ya'all make?? :D

Michale...

What's ironic here is you are guilty of exactly the same thing that you falsely accuse me of..

You ignore ANY evidence, no matter how substantiated, if it puts Obama in a bad light..

As far as Obama's birth, I said it before and I'll say it again. To the objective mind, there is compelling evidence that has yet to be explained...

David,

These do:

reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024

And lo and behold, they come from REUTERS, a news source that Weigantians have confirmed as "legitimate"...

Here is a listing of previous hi-level security meetings re: the security situation in Benghazi...

aei-ideas.org/2012/10/benghazi-the-focus-of-numerous-attacks-and-a-clear-soft-target/

Spin away....

After an attack like this, don't you often have different sources saying different things? Doesn't it usually take a while to find out what really happened?

Really?? Because that wasn't ya'alls story in the immediate aftermath of the attack.. THEN, ya'alls story was that it was a protest gone bad and some OBSCURE anti-Mohamed video...

Where was your "let's wait a while and see" attitude then???

No, the "let's wait a while" attitude came when it was obvious to ANYONE that ya'alls story was complete and utter felgercarb... Only THEN, did ya'all want to "wait and see" because it was obvious to anyone that Obama et al left people to die because of a re-election campaign...

"You are most transparent, O'Neill. I can see right thru you."
-T'ealc, STARGATE SG1, 200

:D

Michale.....

BTW- You loved the birther non-sense! I also remember you going on for pages and pages about how Obama should release his birth certificate.

If you didn't believe it, why did you keep asking for him to release his birth certificate?

Or are you saying you were politically motivated :)

-David

I did. These don't look like an intelligence assessment.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/24/us/libya-benghazi-e-mails/index.html

Where are the ones you claim to be an intelligence assessment?

it's manufactured evidence

Again, no one ever came to this conclusion. I'm not sure where you get this stuff, Michale.

What we've said is that the evidence we've seen isn't convincing, conclusive, or even indicative of poor decision making.

I would also say that the controversy was largely manufactured using insufficient evidence.

What do the e-mails indicate? That there was an unclear picture immediately after the attack?

Ummm. That's not a controversy.

After an attack like this, don't you often have different sources saying different things? Doesn't it usually take a while to find out what really happened?

Where's the controversy?

-David

I'm confused. So your conceding that Obama was born in America? Because one of the 1st conversations I had with you on here was you arguing otherwise for hundreds of posts...

There you go again. Creating fantasy accusations out of NOTHING..

I never claimed that I believed ANYTHING of the sort..

I simply maintain that, speaking objectively, there IS compelling evidence that needs to be explained..

David,

Were the e-mails an intelligence assessment?

Yes, many of them were... Have you bothered reading any of them???

Surely it would make sense for you to READ the evidence before you pass judgment on it, no???

This is why I still don't see any real controversy other than the manufactured kind yet.

That's because you come to the conclusion FIRST (it's manufactured evidence) and therefore frees you up from the obligation of actually having to examine the evidence...

Michale....

Sure.

However, the question is evidence of what.

In the aftermath of an attack, you're likely to receive multiple reports about what happened.

Were the e-mails an intelligence assessment?

Seems to me it would make more sense to investigate the matter rather than go off half cocked.

This is why I still don't see any real controversy other than the manufactured kind yet.

-David

Honestly, you need to take a look in the mirror. You, being someone who believes Obama wasn't born in America, preaching this to everyone around here is pretty much the picture perfect definition of hypocritical.

You have this inane ability to ignore everything that doesn't fit in with your view of the world and reality, whilst giving far too much relevance to things that do. Benghazi is the perfect example of this: from the minute it occurred you had concluded what YOU believed happened and that the ultimate conclusion in your mind was that it was Obama's fault. Since then you have basically sought out evidence which fits in with this hypothesis (of which FNC fed you plenty because that's what they do) and ignored everything else that suggests otherwise.

Then when you come out in this forum blathering your nonsense and people ignore you, you think it's because we're biased or blind or drinking kool-aid or other such phrases that you use.

Like I keep repeating, Tues should have been a wake-up call to you. Instead you have chosen to ignore it and continue on your merry ways ignoring real evidence of the reality out there and seeking 'evidence' that fits in with your continued perception of reality. Until this changes there can be no sensible discussion on Benghazi or anything. The discussion will, as this one has, continue to degenerate into your reality/FNC vs actual reality. In this case actual reality on Benghazi is akin to 'no-one really knows, the timeline is fuzzy' but your reality/FNC reality is 'it is as clear as daylight what happened and it's Obama's fault!'.

No. I define credibility as actual evidence or multiple firsthand reports.

You mean like actual EMAILS from Benghazi officials to Obama Administration officials and back??

The kinds of emails that show there was no protest, that security arrangements were inadequate, that military and CIA forces were ordered to back down.

Would you consider THAT as reliable evidence??

p.s. If I chose to include the "track record" of the reporting, it would also undermine Fox's credibility as their track record is partisan.

What about FNC's track record on Benghazi??

FNC 1
Obama et al 0

If you move the goal posts on what constitutes credibility, you can make ANYTHING you want be "fact"... :D

Ya'all are always, I mean ALWAYS slamming the MSM for their biased reporting..

EXCEPT when it is biased in Obama's favor...

Michale.....

No. I define credibility as actual evidence or multiple firsthand reports. For example, the "source" the Romney camp brought to Bob Woodward didn't have any evidence or firsthand knowledge.

"He finally showed up and he didn't have anything where he had any firsthand knowledge." - Bob Woodward

Fox chose to use this "source".

The other networks didn't find it credible enough.

Now the reason they need more sources or evidence is because with one person, the person may have an ulterior motivation (such as electing Romney).

This is what's known as journalistic integrity.

-David

p.s. If I chose to include the "track record" of the reporting, it would also undermine Fox's credibility as their track record is partisan.

Anyways, it's a Star Trek novel (naturally) that deals with a society where a "disease" was introduced into the population that made it so, when any violent impulses were felt, it would render the person unconscious...

However, a subset of society was immune to the "disease" and they would prey on those who could not fight back..

Over the generations, those suffering from the disease developed a "blind spot" to violence. They simply would not see it. Or, more accurately, it would not register in their minds...

That's what I see happening here. Ya'all have developed a blind spot with Obama so that ANYTHING that occurs that shows Obama to be wrong, incompetent or bad, it's simply not registered...

The simple fact that some of you still believe that there WAS a protest in Benghazi, even though the report has been thoroughly discredited is a perfect example of this blind spot...

It's likely going to take another 4-6 years to get ya'all over this conditioning, but don't worry.. I am here to help... :D

Michale.....

You see my point? When discussing Obama ya'all completely deny reality. Of course there was mocking. From practically EVERY Weigantian, there has been mocking..

Read a book called PERRY'S PLANET... It'll be an eyeopener as it is exactly analogous to the situation here...

Ideological conditioning that allows one to completely deny reality and the evidence of their own senses...

Michale....

We must not be reading the same chrisweigant.com

There is nothing BUT mocking..

Absolute nonsense, the whole Benghazi thing is a massive Obama cover-up. Fox told me. It's fact.

Nope.. No mocking whatsoever, right?? :D

We're just saying look at the credibility of the story.

Yes, but you define "credibility" by the content of the story, not the track record of the reporting...

It's all conjecture and speculation.

So was everything that ya'all castigated BUSH over..

Yet that didn't stop the hysterics, did it??

You know how I know I am right?? Because if it had been a GOP president, ya'all would be saying EXACTLY what I have been saying. We BOTH know that it's true..

Michale....

No one is mocking, Michale. We're just saying look at the credibility of the story. When a journalist like Bob Woodward turns down a story, it's because there isn't enough to really back it up. It's all conjecture and speculation.

All I'm pointing out is that this has made things much more opaque and serpentine. But now, real journalists will begin to sense something in the wind.

It certainly is an interesting development, LB.

-David

Michale, I'm not mocking the notion that something is up with this.

I appreciate that, but it's for naught...

Serious rational debate is gone here..

Mocking is all anyone does now...

Michale.....

This is, honestly, a very interesting development. If it hasn't already, I'll bet the Fox/Drudge/Swamp spin will be that Gen. Petraeus took a bullet for Obama.

They're in a bit of a bind with any other story. The Right, (as should we all, BTW) holds the General in high regard. After all, there have even recently been "XXX-Petraeus" Republican ticket ideas floated for '16.

Michale, I'm not mocking the notion that something is up with this. It's quite unlikely something isn't. All I'm pointing out is that this has made things much more opaque and serpentine. But now, real journalists will begin to sense something in the wind. We might have a chance to really find out.

At [59], I wrote: General Petraeus would end up under the bus. The CIA has considerable culpability in all of it.

Instead, a decorated and honorable soldier suddenly decides that an affair, not before made public, is reason for him to fall on his sword.

He was slated to testify under oath next week on Benghazi. Now, he will not.

Especially when you consider that For months and months and months Obama and 'that 47% guy who lost to Obama' repeatedly said: 'This election is a clear choice between two very different visions'.

Well America chose. And they chose overwhelmingly for the Democratic vision, handing the President a comfortable win, increasing the Senate count and winning the popular House vote (even though Republicans maintained the Senate thanks to their undemocratic re-districting).

Now after all this rhetoric, Republicans have decided: 'well we did say it was a choice but since we lost you chose the other party, we have now decided we don't care and want you to pick our choice anyway.' Amazing. But not surprising.

Petraeus steps down ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/us/citing-affair-petraeus-resigns-as-cia-director.html?hp&_r=0

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/vieth_v_jubelirer/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/06/1117337/-Ohio-Fights-Grotesque-Gerrymanders

Very much a shame that the Issue to have an independent panel draw the districts here in Ohio failed.

My only regret of the election

Democracy - American style!

http://election.princeton.edu/2012/11/09/the-new-house-with-less-democracy/

http://dailycurrant.com/2012/11/06/george-bush-accidently-votes-obama/

Sometimes you can't make this stuff up :)

-David

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-C74vD_aZaUY/UJwy5iHX0DI/AAAAAAAAJC8/8Aospt3wskQ/s1600/a%2Belection%2Bnight%2Bvision%2BClay%2BBennett%2B11-7-12.jpg

You know your party is in trouble when people ask 'did the rape guy win' and you have to ask 'which one?'
- Alex Baldwin

Yes same here. Democrats just annihilated Republicans at the polls, winning the Presidential vote, gaining seats in the Senate and winning the House vote (but not the House because America hates democracy and Republican courts allowed Republicans anti-democratic re-districting).

I am with Krugman on this one: if going over the cliff is the only way to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire then over the cliff we go. There are a tonne of military cuts included too (not enough imo).

I'd rather see him attempt to go over the cliff then put back in the things in the fiscal cliff package that he doesn't like after, than attempt to compromise to a bad deal beforehand...

It's what Republicans always say "Why won't you compromise and accept my plan exactly"

Sure, it's a negotiating tactic. But if the media were to actually come out and call their bullshit "How is this compromise?" instead of simply repeating this insane claim that the Democrats won't work w/ Republicans ... this crap wouldn't happen.

Oddly enough though, I believe the Repubs have dug themselves an odd hole though. Because if you're going to call Democrats uncompromising even when you're giving in 100%, what's the incentive for Dems? Why not just call the bluff?

This is what Krugman argues and this is what many liberals here have been arguing for the past 4 years.

No matter what you do, they're going to hate you. And they've already told you they won't compromise. So why not do what you believe?

Believe it or not, this extreme Republican position actually strengthens the Democratic negotiation position. Here's to hoping Obama is starting to believe!

-David

Fact's legal team is gathering more evidence by the hour ;)

Yea.. And I heard reports that Obama really didn't win the election..

I give up...

None of you can admit when you are wrong... It's useless to even come in here armed with facts because ya'all obfuscate and spin and outright ignore anything that doesn't meet your ObamaLove devotion...

Granted, it's taken me a year or so to realize, but it's impossible to reason with fanatics.

And I am done trying..

Michale.....

Sadly, some media organisations actually bought it. Like the NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/us/politics/back-to-bargaining-table-with-fiscal-cliff-dead-ahead.html?pagewanted=all

Apparently, according to the NYT, a 'Conciliatory Tone' is demanding that: "he was ready to accept a budget deal that raises federal revenue as long as it is linked to an overhaul of entitlements and a reform of the tax code that closes loopholes, curtails or eliminates deductions and lowers income tax rates."

i.e. I am adopting a conciliatory tone while stating that I am willing to accept a deal to enact the Republican tax plan that just got walloped at the polls. LOL.

I was off by a few days. Yesterday, some Republican was on NPR speaking in a calm and reasoned-sounding tone of voice, saying that it would be ok to have the poor pay more taxes as long as the rich pay less.

As for quoting FNC, the only times I have seen it used on here have been in the context of "Even Fox News is reporting this..." as a way of trying to convince you of something — never as a first (or even single) source.

Two FACTS that you simply CANNOT refute..

1. No I quote FNC only in 1 circumstance: to show EVEN Fox is agreeing on an issue (usually in a vein of surprise). You know this but you keep repeating this rhetoric (like all other rhetoric). Just like I also quote Rush Limbaugh, for the same reason, this does not legitimise in anyway anything Rush/Fox says.

2. No it is not 'fact'. It is Fox News opinion. Others have other opinions. This could not be further from FACT if you made it up yourself. We keep repeating this over and over and over again but you don't get it. Just because Fox News says it DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE/FACT. I would've thought after Tuesday you might have realised this...

3. Check out this BBC news story below. I'll summarise for you: the word 'Fact' has launched legal action against Michale of the CW.com forum for constant abuse and misuse. Quoting a lawyer on the case: "'Fact' has just had enough of years of abuse from Michale. Before the election 'Fact' was thrown around and checked all over the media and he thought his misuse would've stopped - but now he is having to take personal legal action to ensure that he is, once again, used properly. Michale will be hearing from Fact's lawyers in due course."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/fact-sues-Michale

Is there some kind of Lefty creed that says you simple CAN'T admit when yer wrong??

Call me silly, but I was always taught that if yer wrong if ya make a mistake, you own up to it..

I guess that makes me in the minority here in more ways then one..

Michale...

Two problems with your statements.

1- YOU quote FNC when it suits your agenda to do so..

2- FNC was right and YOU were wrong about Obama's fantasy Benghazi Protest.

Two FACTS that you simply CANNOT refute..

Here's where you come back with "Oh it's impossible to talk to you, I'm done" type response.. Which is standard when you can't argue facts...

Michale.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/09/opinion/krugman-lets-not-make-a-deal.html?_r=1&

I guess that is too much to ask... :^/

Michale

Thank you for showing PERFECTLY exactly the problem here.

Ya'all revel in celebrating when I am wrong.. Ya laugh and point fingers and say how funny it is that Michale is wrong..

Yet NONE of you have the maturity to admit when ya'all are wrong...

Ninjaf,

Read thru your comments here:

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/09/14/ftp226/#comments

When ya'all can admit you were wrong, come talk to me...

Michale....

So, why didn't Romney and the Republican leadership see the Iceberg?

1. Inertia.

Generals tend to re-fight the last successful war, and the GOP did well in 2010, even if the lost the White House in 2008. Tea Party grass root anger and enthusiasm was going to carry the day.

2. Too much Citizens United Cash

Never in the course of human events has so much been owed to so few to achieve such meager results.
In theory, there isn't supposed to be any coordination between Citizens United generated money and The Romney Campaign, and in practice, that seems to have been mostly true! The ad barrages coming from the corporations and wealthy donors focused on issues the voters didn't care much about, and typically had rather bad production values to boot. Wealthy guys like Sheldon Adelman and the Koch bros. are political amateurs who can hurt as much as they help. Ten times more ads are not ten times more effective.

3. Feared their own troops more than the enemy

Much as the Republicans want the Tea Party energy, they know the Tea Party ideology is toxic. That said, Republican politicians know the Tea Party must be obeyed, or at least pandered to very loudly. Basically, hold hands, close your eyes and jump.

4. Lack of high ranking people with statistical savvy who were willing to yell "Iceberg"

Dick Morris is not a statistician. Carl Rove is not a statistician. They are bull sh*tters. Do not believe your own bs. The data were out there, it was out there on this very Chris Weigant blog in highly readable form, it was there as aggregated polls, it was out there in prediction markets, and did I mention Nate Silver? Any one source can be wrong, but not dozens. Plenty of people saw the 'berg, and lots of them must of been Republicans. Apparently, no Republican statisticians are considered VIPs worthy of attention.

By the way, did you see the Democratic ground game in Ohio? Micro targeted marketing with comfy one on one human interaction, plus roving vans to get souls to polls. I'm making one of those French "blowing a kiss" gestures right now. Good use of money, time and people.

5. Lack of time due to back stabbing GOP primary process.

Nuff said.

Michale: 'Blah blah blah Fox News says Obama walked into Benghazi and shot Stevens between the eyes blah blah blah. This will definitely cost him the election, he'll probably be impeached etc'

Exit polls - Foreign policy: Obama 56%, Romney 33%

Exit polls - Trust Obama to handle an International crisis: Yes 57%, No 42%

But no. Reality is probably wrong. Fox is probably right.

The reason no one here will agree with you on what you call facts is because the facts have not been settled. The investigation is still ongoing. The facts have not been established. And as far as the protests being non-existent that night, even as recently as last week, I have heard that there are still witnesses saying that there were protesters there. And I heard this without even following this story.

David and michty are right...I think it is time to leave this topic alone. You are hijacking every thread with this discussion. It might be best to agree to disagree.

michty,
That BBC article is interesting. Thanks for sharing.