Celebrities And Politics

User avatar
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: Celebrities And Politics

Postby criddic3 » Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:28 pm

You picked the Daily Kos to counter the AP??

Maybe we should call a truce and say that no one is without some bias? Maybe that's fair. I don't know. The Daily Kos is not unbiased themselves, to say the least!
"If you can't stand the nut on the left and you can't stand the nut on the right, go for the Johnson,” Jonathan S. Bush (10/21/2016)

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15818
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Celebrities And Politics

Postby Big Magilla » Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:25 pm

AP fact checkers' bias is showing

by Joan McCarter, Daily Kos

A winning team. The AP hates that.

Man, there's still some potent media hate for Bill Clinton. Case in point, the Associated Press's Matt Apuzzo and Tom Raum, who were assigned fact checking duty on President Clinton's speech. Maybe it was all the ad libbing that threw them, and they're pissed off that they actually had to listen and couldn't just work off the transcript. Or maybe most of it went over their heads, since it was actually a substantive policy speech. Or maybe they just can't get past the fact that the American people ignored all their best efforts back in the 1990s to vilify the man, and we still love him.
No matter the reason, this fact check is a steaming pile of misdirection and straw men, starting with this.


[W]hen former President Bill Clinton took the stage at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday, he portrayed President Barack Obama as a pragmatic compromiser who has been stymied at every turn by Republicans. There was no mention of the role that the president and the Democrats have played in grinding compromise to a halt on some of the most important issues facing the country.
Oh, really? Well, then, let's look at their examples of Obama's uncompromising actions. First, they say, he brought Rahm Emanuel in as chief of staff, "a man known for his getting his way, not for getting along." What did Emanuel actually do to block compromise with Republicans in his tenure? They don't say. His mere presence was enough to prove Obama's bad will toward Republicans.
Then there's this one, stunning in its obtuseness.


One of the more high-profile examples of a deal that fell apart was the outline of a proposed "grand bargain" budget agreement between Obama and House Speaker John Boehner in 2011. [...]
Boehner couldn't sell the plan to tea party factions in the House or to other conservative activists. And Obama found himself accused of going too far by some Democratic leaders. The deal died before it ever even came up for a vote.
Damn that Barack Obama for fixing it so that Boehner couldn't control his caucus. Maybe he's a hypnotist. Or maybe the authors are full of shit. They also conveniently leave out the fact that the whole grand bargain discussion came as a result of the unprecedented refusal of the Republican House to raise the debt ceiling and the entire manufactured crisis that ensued. But providing that context would have gotten in the way of their Obama/Clinton bashing.
Also, too, they say, Obama walked away from the Catfood Commission recommendations, even though the authors admit "he later incorporated some of the less contentious proposals from the report into legislation he supported." Never mind that enough of the commission members, including Paul Ryan, walked away from the effort and it failed to even produce official recommendations, it's all Obama's fault. Which Clinton totally didn't talk about in his speech.

Then there's a whole bunch of hooey about health care and the economy, in which the authors stretch the bounds of what actually did happen and what actually might happen to refute President Clinton. (Did you know that the economy wasn't as good in the Clinton years as we all remember it? Well it wasn't. Just shut up.) That's all just a lead up to what really has these two in a permanent snit: A blow job. Seriously.


CLINTON: "Their campaign pollster said, `We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.' Now that is true. I couldn't have said it better myself - I just hope you remember that every time you see the ad."
THE FACTS: Clinton, who famously finger-wagged a denial on national television about his sexual relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky and was subsequently impeached in the House on a perjury charge, has had his own uncomfortable moments over telling the truth.
Get over it already, guys. Seriously. You lost that one, years ago. Just let it go. And the next time you're assigned to fact check, well, just don't. You're not doing it right.
There's plenty more discussion in MPociask's diary.
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.” - Voltaire

User avatar
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: Celebrities And Politics

Postby criddic3 » Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:56 pm

Sonic Youth wrote:Rather than rebut your silly article point-by-point (since I have no time now; if you want me to do it later or tomorrow, I can), I'll just say that if the best you can do is find an alleged "fact-check" article that takes issue with only four pieces of data from Clinton's speech - out of many - only two of four which deals specifically with Obama's record, and only one of four which is a legitimate fact-check and correction... then you're in real sad shape.

And your rant was wonderfully random.


Yes so random Sonic, so random. This fact-check was from the Associated Press which was also linked on Yahoo!, so it's not from some conservative blog or some right-leaning site like foxnews.com Let's face it, no matter what I post, you are going to tell me how "silly" or "wrong" or "random" it is. Now, if I said I loved Bill Clinton's speech and that he was the great truth-teller of our time, maybe you'd tell me how enlightened I am. Frankly, I don't even think you would believe that Clinton is the great truth-teller of our time. You may post a "fact-check" claiming that his speech was "mostly true," but that's because you want President Obama to win the election. By the way, your linked article was as short or shorter than mine: It says "The worst we could fault him for was a suggestion that President Obama’s Affordable Care Act was responsible for bringing down the rate of increase in health care spending, when the fact is that the law’s main provisions have yet to take effect." Then it goes on to list a few brief paragraphs about "exaggerations." The AP article had several in-depth explanations of different passages in Clinton's speech that were inaccurate. How silly of me! Maybe I should find a fact-check article that runs 5 pages long to make you happy.
"If you can't stand the nut on the left and you can't stand the nut on the right, go for the Johnson,” Jonathan S. Bush (10/21/2016)

User avatar
Sonic Youth
Laureate
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Re: Celebrities And Politics

Postby Sonic Youth » Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:44 pm

Rather than rebut your silly article point-by-point (since I have no time now; if you want me to do it later or tomorrow, I can), I'll just say that if the best you can do is find an alleged "fact-check" article that takes issue with only four pieces of data from Clinton's speech - out of many - only two of four which deals specifically with Obama's record, and only one of four which is a legitimate fact-check and correction... then you're in real sad shape.

And your rant was wonderfully random.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler

User avatar
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: Celebrities And Politics

Postby criddic3 » Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:09 pm

The Associated Press begs to differ.
http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-clinton-claims-compromise-stretch-043255807--election.html

the NYT is the least BIASED news outlet in the country


Please. I believe that as much as I believed Bill Clinton "did not have sexual relations with that woman...Miss Lewinsky." Or as much as I believe half the garbage in the Enquirer rags. Okay, maybe they're more honest than that, but they ARE biased and have shown it for years. They haven't endorsed a Republican practically EVER in its history, save Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower, and certainly not since 1960. Yes, they have a clear bias.
"If you can't stand the nut on the left and you can't stand the nut on the right, go for the Johnson,” Jonathan S. Bush (10/21/2016)

User avatar
Sonic Youth
Laureate
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Re: Celebrities And Politics

Postby Sonic Youth » Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:24 am

Factcheck websites say Clinton's info-filled speech was (mostly) true.

http://factcheck.org/2012/09/our-clinton-nightmare/

More proof that these scurrilous organizations are run by partisan Democrats!
"What the hell?"

Win Butler

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12570
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Celebrities And Politics

Postby OscarGuy » Tue Sep 04, 2012 11:01 pm

At least the New York Times doesn't make things up or actively lie about the way things are. I can't speak for MSNBC or HuffPo, but the NYT is the least BIASED news outlet in the country. They do actual journalistic exploration. The only reason you chastise them is because they don't post articles that support your beliefs...they like to use things called facts, not assumptions and twisted truths.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

User avatar
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: Celebrities And Politics

Postby criddic3 » Tue Sep 04, 2012 7:50 pm

As I said in my last post, when I used Google to find such failed companies under Bush, it did not come up.

By the way, proud to be a "Fox-ified wall" I do watch other stuff, too. Anyway, It's better than being Huffington Post-ified. Or New York Times-ified. Or MSNBC-ified. As long as I take in other views and express my own opinions as I see things, I know I'm okay.
"If you can't stand the nut on the left and you can't stand the nut on the right, go for the Johnson,” Jonathan S. Bush (10/21/2016)

User avatar
Sonic Youth
Laureate
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Re: Celebrities And Politics

Postby Sonic Youth » Mon Sep 03, 2012 5:53 pm

Mister Tee wrote:Sonic -- you know you're talking to a Fox-ified wall. Why do you bother?


Because sometimes it's fun.
"What the hell?"

Win Butler

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6577
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Celebrities And Politics

Postby Mister Tee » Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:45 pm

Sonic -- you know you're talking to a Fox-ified wall. Why do you bother?

User avatar
Sonic Youth
Laureate
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Re: Celebrities And Politics

Postby Sonic Youth » Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:26 pm

criddic3 wrote:
Sonic Youth wrote:
criddic3 wrote:Loans are one thing, but major multi-million dollar investments where President Barack Obama stands there and says "this investment and my policies will save jobs." (not a direct quote by the way)?


Solyndra was a loan, not an investment.

I don't recall President Bush doing a lot of that, and he didn't have embarrassing closures nearly every time a loan was given.


I'm not interested in your recollections. I want to see hard data backing that up.


http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/romneys-attack-on-clean-energy-true-with-an-asterisk/

According to the NY Times, the Bush administration did apply for some loans for energy companies, some of which were turned down by the energy department, which of course is run by appointees of the administration. The Obama administration approved alternate versions of some of those requests, thus spending the bulk of the money in this term.


Interesting interpretation. All that the article said was "Energy Department officials turned down the loan application as incomplete shortly before Mr. Obama took office; the same officials later approved a revised application." Your words suggested that the department (run by Bush appointees) turned down Solyndra's request for their project, and Obama's administration accepted a rejiggered plan. All it was, was a simple application snafu, at least according to the article you provided. (I have no idea if it's true or not; I'm only going by what you provided.) The money spent during Obama's term would've very likely been spent during Bush's term if the application process went through correctly the first time.

But that's neither here nor there. My question was, I wanted to see hard data backing up your claim which was specifically "Loans are one thing, but major multi-million dollar investments where President Barack Obama stands there and says "this investment and my policies will save jobs." (not a direct quote by the way)? I don't recall President Bush doing a lot of that, and he didn't have embarrassing closures nearly every time a loan was given." Is it true that NEARLY EVERY TIME Obama's administration approved a loan, the business then closed? And is it true that the companies Bush loaned to didn't close? I know there were lots of bankruptcies during Bush's administration. I don't know how many of them recieved government loans from Bush, although General Motors received billions from him and it ended up with all these plant-closings like the one in Janesville, among others.
"What the hell?"

Win Butler

User avatar
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: Celebrities And Politics

Postby criddic3 » Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:22 pm

Sonic Youth wrote:
criddic3 wrote:Loans are one thing, but major multi-million dollar investments where President Barack Obama stands there and says "this investment and my policies will save jobs." (not a direct quote by the way)?


Solyndra was a loan, not an investment.

I don't recall President Bush doing a lot of that, and he didn't have embarrassing closures nearly every time a loan was given.


I'm not interested in your recollections. I want to see hard data backing that up.


http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/romneys-attack-on-clean-energy-true-with-an-asterisk/

According to the NY Times, the Bush administration did apply for some loans for energy companies, some of which were turned down by the energy department, which of course is run by appointees of the administration. The Obama administration approved alternate versions of some of those requests, thus spending the bulk of the money in this term. When I Googled "President George W. Bush energy loans," many links were old and I found none stating that an energy plant had closed soon after being given a government loan under that administration. (by the way: A loan is an investment. Someone loans you money to start a business, it's an investment. Not the stock-market variety, but you get my meaning.)
"If you can't stand the nut on the left and you can't stand the nut on the right, go for the Johnson,” Jonathan S. Bush (10/21/2016)

User avatar
Sonic Youth
Laureate
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Re: Celebrities And Politics

Postby Sonic Youth » Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 pm

criddic3 wrote:Loans are one thing, but major multi-million dollar investments where President Barack Obama stands there and says "this investment and my policies will save jobs." (not a direct quote by the way)?


Solyndra was a loan, not an investment.

I don't recall President Bush doing a lot of that, and he didn't have embarrassing closures nearly every time a loan was given.


I'm not interested in your recollections. I want to see hard data backing that up.
"What the hell?"

Win Butler

User avatar
Sonic Youth
Laureate
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Re: Celebrities And Politics

Postby Sonic Youth » Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:42 pm

criddic3 wrote:
Sonic Youth wrote:
criddic3 wrote:I agree that it's splitting hairs a bit. But both sides are playing that game with this GM plant. Paul Ryan was making a point, and a powerful one for many voters. It goes to the narrative of President Obama making promises or investments that look foolish later on. If it was once, maybe it could be overlooked, but several businesses were called good investments where millions of dollars were poured into. Many of them closed shop not long after. Solyndra is the most famous example of this, but there were others. Supporters of President Obama will say that this is no big deal. But it is. Why is the government getting so involved in these investments?


Don't ask us. G.W. Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law which allowed the government to give loan guarantees to energy companies. Why don't you ask the former Republican president why he felt the government should be involved in such investments?

This isn't about when the plant closed. It's about Obama's assertion that he could save it.


And how is Obama supposed to save a plant if it closes when someone else is president?


Again, it DIDN'T close while Bush was president. It only officially stopped production in April of 2009, according to the AP. Now you can argue that it was planned while Bush was in office, but Obama did suggest that his policies could save it. I agreed with Magilla that the timing was splitting hairs, but do think that it is disingenuous for Democrats to claim that Paul Ryan was lying. He wasn't. Barack Obama made statements that his policies would help this plant stay alive, and it shut down officially while he was president. Not the day he came in but months into his term. You ask him how he's supposed to save the plant that closed in April of 2009.


http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/st ... aily5.html


GM to close Janesville plant Dec. 23
The Business Journal
Date: Monday, October 13, 2008, 9:56am CDT


General Motors Corp.'s Janesville plant, which was slated to be shut down in 2010, will now close Dec. 23 because of the slumping demand for the SUV and pickup trucks.

The closure will put the plant's remaining 1,253 workers out of a job, according to a Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification letter received by the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development Monday. The plant is closing because of the "dramatic and continuing decline in customer orders" for the vehicles produced at the plant.

The Detroit automaker last week said it was also accelerating the closure of an SUV plant in Moraine, Ohio, to Dec. 23. At the time, GM spokesman Chris Lee told the Business Courier of Cincinnati, a sister publication of The Business Journal, that sales for midsize, luxury SUVs are down 40 percent this year through September compared with the same period in 2007.

In June, the company said that the Janesville plant will cease production of medium-duty trucks by the end of 2009, and of the Tahoe, Suburban and Yukon in 2010, because of the decline in demand for the gas guzzlers. However, the firm had always said that the closure could come sooner, as dictated by market demand. At the time, the plant had about 2,800 employees.


http://www.galesburg.com/news/business/ ... -residents


Janesville plant closing no surprise to residents.
The Associated Press
Posted Oct 14, 2008 @ 08:49 AM


JANESVILLE, Wis. (AP) — This hard-scrabble city's General Motors plant has withstood storms, the Great Depression and a world war. But it couldn't survive high gas prices.

General Motors Corp. announced Monday it would shut down the plant in two phases. Sport utility vehicle production will end Dec. 23, leaving about 1,200 people out of work. About 40 workers will stay on through May or June to complete a light truck order for Isuzu Motors Ltd. Then the sprawling complex will close.

GM announced in June the plant would be among four to close by 2010 as high gas prices hurt sales of SUVs. Monday's announcement set a hard date that comes sooner than originally expected.

State and local officials promised to continue persuading the automotive giant to build a new product at the plant, but workers and others here greeted the news with grim acceptance. That didn't make the news any easier to take.

"It's a sad day," said John Dohner Jr., head contract negotiator for the plant's United Auto Workers local. "Even though we were gearing up for it, the reality is here. It's tough on the membership. It's just a case of the economy running away from the product we make."

The plant has been a major employer here for most of the past century.


http://www.rrstar.com/news/x1060484339/ ... yed?zc_p=0


Hugs, tears as GM workers leave Janesville plant for last time.
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Posted Dec 23, 2008 @ 06:52 AM


JANESVILLE, Wis. — As the last SUV rolled off the General Motors production line here today, Karen Green promised herself she would keep her emotions in check.

But when plant and union officials began thanking workers for their years of service, she couldn’t hold back the tears.

“I was pretty good up until the end. Then I lost it,” said Green, 55, of Fort Atkinson, who worked on the Janesville assembly line for 14 years. “It was just so somber, so sad.”

Green was one of 1,200 employees let go when GM ended SUV production at the southern Wisconsin plant.

An additional 800 or so jobs have been lost at local companies that supplied GM parts.

“We gave it a pretty good run for 85 years,” said Steve Kriefall, 58, of Janesville. “But these are tough times now, and it’s hard to see it come to this.”

Kriefall retired from a 25-year career at the plant two years ago, but came back today for the final day.

The recession and a new reluctance to extend credit have further hurt GM and other U.S. automakers. GM’s sales have dropped 18 percent, and the company has lost $57.5 billion in the past 18 months.

In response, GM has announced 11,000 U.S. layoffs this year. They include 1,080 workers a GM plant in Moraine, Ohio, that also closed today.

About 50 workers will remain at the Janesville plant to complete an order of small- to medium-duty trucks for Isuzu Motors Ltd. They’re scheduled to finish by May or June, and then the plant will close down for good, GM spokesman Christopher Lee said.


So, what do we have?

We have news stories reported as it happened in 2008, some from the AP, reporting that General Motors announced that it will close its Janesville plant on December 23rd. It reported that December 23rd was "the last day". Production continued until April because they were contractually obligated to complete an order placed in 2008, of which only 50 of the 1,200 employees were required. But the closure was in "two stages", and since the first stage requiring shuttering most of the plant and firing 1,200 workers in 2008 when Bush was in office, that means the plant was already officially closing. There was nothing to be done to reverse course when Obama took office.

And this doesn't include the additional 800 workers from local parts-supplying businesses who were also let go because of the closure. All this on Bush's watch.

So, here's the question again. How is Obama supposed to save a plant if it closes when someone else is president? And if you still insist that the plant didn't close while Bush was president, despite all the evidence against your claim, then answer this: how is Obama supposed to save a plant that lays off 97% of its workforce before he takes office?
"What the hell?"

Win Butler

User avatar
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: Celebrities And Politics

Postby criddic3 » Mon Sep 03, 2012 1:44 pm

Sonic Youth wrote:
criddic3 wrote:I agree that it's splitting hairs a bit. But both sides are playing that game with this GM plant. Paul Ryan was making a point, and a powerful one for many voters. It goes to the narrative of President Obama making promises or investments that look foolish later on. If it was once, maybe it could be overlooked, but several businesses were called good investments where millions of dollars were poured into. Many of them closed shop not long after. Solyndra is the most famous example of this, but there were others. Supporters of President Obama will say that this is no big deal. But it is. Why is the government getting so involved in these investments?


Don't ask us. G.W. Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law which allowed the government to give loan guarantees to energy companies. Why don't you ask the former Republican president why he felt the government should be involved in such investments?

This isn't about when the plant closed. It's about Obama's assertion that he could save it.


And how is Obama supposed to save a plant if it closes when someone else is president?


Again, it DIDN'T close while Bush was president. It only officially stopped production in April of 2009, according to the AP. Now you can argue that it was planned while Bush was in office, but Obama did suggest that his policies could save it. I agreed with Magilla that the timing was splitting hairs, but do think that it is disingenuous for Democrats to claim that Paul Ryan was lying. He wasn't. Barack Obama made statements that his policies would help this plant stay alive, and it shut down officially while he was president. Not the day he came in but months into his term. You ask him how he's supposed to save the plant that closed in April of 2009.

Loans are one thing, but major multi-million dollar investments where President Barack Obama stands there and says "this investment and my policies will save jobs." (not a direct quote by the way)? I don't recall President Bush doing a lot of that, and he didn't have embarrassing closures nearly every time a loan was given. Plus these investments under Obama were very large to faltering companies that were hardly expected to pay back. We, the taxpayer, lost that money. Shouldn't the government be smarter about this if they are going to do it at all? I don't think any administration should be giving such huge guarantees to companies, especially when there is evidence that it's unwise to do so.
"If you can't stand the nut on the left and you can't stand the nut on the right, go for the Johnson,” Jonathan S. Bush (10/21/2016)


Return to “Current Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest