i have a man crush on paul krugman

My what an intelligent man. His articles are good reads.

In the meantime, I'm going to get my hip waders, fishing rod, and net ready. I think we're going to catch some tasty 'f'ish in this thread.

I'm glad someone organized the facts cleanly like that and got it out there

ignorant wrote: this is sad... but I do.. He's so awesome.. words fail me.. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/opinion/12krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

The Holy Editorial wrote: Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs.

BWAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH gasp choke BWUH HUHHUHHUHHUH ha ha huh huh huh PHOO

OK, I quit reading right there. All the more rich coming from an editorial in the New York Times (as if every word written there isn't already an editorial).

Note: I'm not disputing the facts and I'm not voting Republican or Democrat this fall. But for someone to come on and make a editorial like this and then A) claim that they are "balanced" and B) act like their hero doesn't do the same thing is simply ludicrous.

Duke, I spent some time in the trenches at papers, and it is a real problem with the whole goal of an "objective" media... too often they give equal weight to both sides, even if one side is telling a bald-faced lie.

That's pretty over-simplified, and I'm glossing over details and ramifications, but the problem is real. Quite a few really smart people have pondered and written on it, but it's not an easy problem to solve, especially given that too many journalists just want to get something written by deadline. If you start chasing down the half-truths and un-truths, having to give equal weight to each of them -- down the rabbit hole you go.

Anyway, both sides take advantage of it, so I'm not giving anyone a pass. But it's a problem we as the reader/viewer/whatever should be aware of.

Duke wrote: Note: I'm not disputing the facts and I'm not voting Republican *or* Democrat this fall. But for someone to come on and make a editorial like this and then A) claim that they are "balanced" and B) act like their hero doesn't do the same thing is simply ludicrous.

The author never claimed to be "balanced". He actually seems to be fairly open that he is a liberal.

According to stuff on FactCheck.org, Obama is not engaged in nearly the same sort of activities the McCain is. He does stretch facts and get figures wrong, but it does not appear that he is telling out-and-out lies, the way the McCain campaign is.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_obama.html

Tim Baxter wrote: Duke, I spent some time in the trenches at papers, and it *is* a real problem with the whole goal of an "objective" media... too often they give equal weight to both sides, even if one side is telling a bald-faced lie.

Well, I'll accept your words, but I've rarely seen it as a reader. 95% of the papers I read are utterly transparent in their subjectivity and complete LACK of objectivity.

And @ Salanis - he's claiming that they try to be "balanced" at all costs. That to me says that he believes he is (and the paper is) balanced and objective. I heartily disagree.

But, rather than risk of conjuring up some large, flat, bottom-dwelling fish, I'll leave it at that.

Duke wrote: And @ Salanis - he's claiming that they try to be "balanced" at all costs. That to me says that he believes he is (and the paper is) balanced and objective. I heartily disagree.

Sounds more like he's decrying the attempt of media sources to be "balanced" in all their reporting. He's also not saying that media sources are "unbiased" or "objective" either.

Damn Iggy. Had you said you had a man-crush on Jack Klugman (rhymes with Krugman,) we finally would've found some common ground.

Once again we get back to perceived media bias. I will again suggest that media is mainly biased toward ugly, simplistic, sensational attention getting at all costs, even to the detriment(sp?) of the social, civic and econmic health of our nation. Precious few of us feel like our ideals, needs and aspirations are fairly represented.

This is an old joke, but tell me if it fits your experience. The Pope and (Insert your favorite political or social leader here) were sitting a boat having a coversation. The media were nearby observing from another boat. A gust of wind picked up the Pope's hat blew it a couple of meters away. (Insert your favorite political or social leader here) stepped out of the boat and walked on water to the Pope's hat, picked it and walked on water back to the boat to give the Pope his hat. The media observered this and started busily preparing reports. The headlines and breaking news banners read, "(Insert your favorite political or social leader here) Can't Swim."

As long we watch and put up with this, Its going continue.

I would respect the article (man) more if he talked about both sides... ...because you know both side do it...

...the partisan crap is getting old...

poopshovel wrote: Damn Iggy. Had you said you had a man-crush on Jack Klugman (rhymes with Krugman,) we finally would've found some common ground.

thats hot

<----- begins slamming head on desk, will repeat until we all wake up and STOP TALKING MOTHER BERKELY-ING POLITICS on this board.

Good god, can some of you just STFU about this? I came here to discuss cars, motorsports, Miatas, dirty old clowns and other nonsensical things. There are many more sites that I can go and be assaulted about politics and religion, why bring it here?

Yes, I know I can always not read the post, so perhaps when you start a political or religious post, perhaps one could put that in the title? That way the rest of us won't get sucked into the political/religious BS that is off-topic.

Okay, I feel better now that I've vented a bit. Feel free to ignore my rant and continue with whatever it is that we were discussing in here.... What? It's time for my pills? I thought I just took them. Okay.......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I was discussing Jack Klugman's sexy ass forearms. I don't know what the berkeley you're talking about.

fiat22turbo wrote: ... I came here to discuss cars, motorsports, Miatas, dirty old clowns and other nonsensical things. ...

Politics are nonsensical things too.

Ok, I'm really unable to tell if you really like this man or you are being sarcastic.

That article is pretty dumb and he could save a lot of effort on his part and just print "McCain is a liar - vote Obama" and leave it at that.

Why is it that he seems oblivious to the fact that both sides are playing the very same game? Where is his brilliant analysis of all the outright Obama lies?

Politics is broken.

I think factcheck.org should interview the candidates...I think they'd check their numbers a few times before saying anything...knowing that before they left the interview pretty much everything they said would be analyzed.

"the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues —"

While the Obama camp is dancing and singing that old song "It's a wonderful day in the neighborhood. tra la la, I'm for change, change, change, change"

Yup they're big on issues over there.

If you want to start a political thread, which I really don't think has much of a place on a car forum, why not label it as such and not try to sneak it in. Can you spell disingenuous? Or would the phrase disingenuous democrat be an oxymoron?

Moderator can you lock this thread?

What, we're not allowed to talk politics anymore?

ignorant wrote: Please check fact check and you will find that obama is lieing.. .Yes.. But no where near the level of...

Just curious Iggy....where do you draw the line on politicians lying? A "big" lie is bad, but many smaller ones are O.K.? Do you consider the fact that Biden "overlooks"his draft deferment because he claimed to have asthma, and instead talks of his football heroics in his book,an oversight, an omission, or just a flat out lie? I was raised that a lie is a lie, there are no degrees. Not to dig up a dead horse, but did Clinton lie when he denied (in sworn testimony) having"relations with that woman"? Did Hillary lie when she "didn't recall" shredding subpoenaed documents"? Are these worse or better than Bush telling us of Saddam's storehouse of weapons of mass destruction? The fact of the matter is many politicians tell their audience what they(politicos) think the crowd wants to hear. The proof of character is how they voted. Has it been consistent with what they say? I think that their records speak much louder than their words.

minimac wrote:

ignorant wrote: Please check fact check and you will find that obama is lieing.. .Yes.. But no where near the level of...

Just curious Iggy....where do you draw the line on politicians lying? A "big" lie is bad, but many smaller ones are O.K.? Do you consider the fact that Biden "overlooks"his draft deferment because he claimed to have asthma, and instead talks of his football heroics in his book,an oversight, an omission, or just a flat out lie? I was raised that a lie is a lie, there are no degrees. Not to dig up a dead horse, but did Clinton lie when he denied (in sworn testimony) having"relations with that woman"? Did Hillary lie when she "didn't recall" shredding subpoenaed documents"? Are these worse or better than Bush telling us of Saddam's storehouse of weapons of mass destruction? The fact of the matter is many politicians tell their audience what they(politicos) think the crowd wants to hear. The proof of character is how they voted. Has it been consistent with what they say? I think that their records speak much louder than their words.

If the Bush administration knowingly mislead the American public about knowledge of weapons in Iraq (which I believe they did, but that's another too-big argument), that is worse the Clinton stating under oath that he didn't boink a gal he boinked.

The difference is, one lie was regarding a personal issue that only affected a small number of parties; the other was a much broader issue that has had profound repercussions on our nation, economy, and world politics. Only one of the two has gotten people killed.

That doesn't excuse the other lie. It was wrong... but it no one died.

As for Obama lying. According to FactChecker, he actually hasn't out and out lied. He has expanded or contracted statistics, and he has stated things without the full context or without comparing it to what he did. For example: McCain voted in line with Bush/Rep policies 90% of the time; Obama doesn't say that he followed the Dem line 95% of the time. That depends if what you're interested in is how close each one is to their party, or if you dislike the Bush string of policies and are worried that McCain might continue them.

I think you missed my point salie. The fact is they all lied. Is it a matter of degree? I don't think so. Both George and Bill misled the country. Both had profound repercussions on our nation. Heck, one almost got impeached.and tore apart the country.And it wasn't the one that got people killed. Or maybe it was(ask Vince Foster). One has made a mockery of the office of the Presidency, one(or maybe both) has(have) changed how people feel about their country. So it wasn't just a little lie, that involved only few people......

minimac wrote: Both George and Bill misled the country. Both had profound repercussions on our nation.

I had something I was going to say, but I think I'd just be rehashing my earlier point. I think there's a big difference. I really don't want this to launch in the errors of Clinton/of Bush direction.

There are degrees of lies. Is a white lie not a lie? "No, honey. You don't look fat at all in this dress." "Santa Claus brought the presents last night." "Of course you're hotter than Angelina Jolie." "Oh, of course we already called their office and scheduled the meeting."

All lies. They don't really hurt. Even blatant lies that aren't "white" don't necessarily hurt. Would you count exaggerating your driving skills or claiming a lower score for a golf game to be as bad as perjury?

How about lying to a police officer and saying that you were going the speed limit, or lying and saying that you didn't kill someone?

Let's take two Bill Clinton lies (paraphrased): "I never smoked pot", and "I've never cheated on my wife."

I'd be worried about myself if I let some "fact" website totally dictate my beliefs - it's on the internetz it must be true!!

Both sides lie, I agree McC has been stretching it a bit too much here lately but yO-mama isn't the clean innocent politician (now there's an oxymoron for you!) some people on here would like you to believe.

And I agree - FLOUNDER! Shut this down please....

fastEddie wrote: I'd be worried about myself if I let some "fact" website totally dictate my beliefs - it's on the internetz it must be true!! Both sides lie, I agree McC has been stretching it a bit too much here lately but yO-mama isn't the clean innocent politician (now there's an oxymoron for you!) some people on here would like you to believe. And I agree - FLOUNDER! Shut this down please....

I deleted everything I wrote..

Happy now?

I guess we(Iggy,Salie and myself) just have to agree to disagree on what is a lie and what are the consequences.