That’s the title of the email that the Obama campaign sent out that said:
We finally closed the gap. We outraised Mitt Romney and the Republicans $114 million to $111 million in August.
I’m not sure if it’s the fact that the Obama campaign seems so suprised or that it’s the use of the word “damned” that irks me more.
I mean, terrible marketing strategy aside…what irks you about his word choice?
“Fueled by contributions from more than 1.1 million Americans donating an average of $58—more than 317,000 who had never contributed to the campaign before—we raised a total of more than $114 million.”
Sorry, I’m not buying this .... laundered union money seems more plausible.
This money advantage that Obama has is the reason he’s going to win. Ever since that Citizen’s United decision by the Supreme Court, it has been a lost cause for the GOP and our democracy.
Ok, now that the sarcasm is out of the way, can we have a media group do a poll of welfare recipients and their Presidential preferences? Then total up how many federal dollars are given to the net percentage of welfare recipients that will vote for Obama? There is your real money edge.
can we have a media group do a poll of welfare recipients and their Presidential preferences? Then total up how many federal dollars are given to the net percentage of welfare recipients that will vote for Obama? There is your real money edge.
Aside from the obvious, you know what bugs me about this? Mitt running ads accusing the president of “gutting” welfare’s work requirements. I shudder involuntarily every time I hear him “approve this message.” The blatant dishonesty of it stuns me. And the fact that he’s still runing them even after the media and fact-checkers have all called him on it. Even worse, he’s been on TV in person to suggest that the president’s gutting of welfare’s work requirements were a way to “shore up his base.” Dog whistley though it may be, it’s stone cold racist.
I wouldn’t say that removing the work requirement for welfare is racist. Obama is pandering to the votes of all on welfare, not just the racial minorities.
There you go again Scott, quoting ‘Media and Factcheckers’ as though they are somehow the final fair arbiters of what is fact and what is not.
Here is a view point on the veracity of the NY Times claim that Romney was lying on his ‘Gutting Welfare Work Requirements’ ad from Mickey Kaus in the Daily Caller recently: http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/10/nyt-proves-romney-right-on-welfare/
Of course partisans like Scott will tout the claims of the fact checkers as unimpeachable, because to do so removes any need for them to actually have to engage in a discussion themself that forces them to defend their own OPINION on a matter. It’s far easier to just say ‘The Fact Checkers Say It’s a Lie!’, declare the arguement over, and then condemn anyone who questions the fact checkers objectivity or partisanship as being a closed minded hack.
James Taranto had a great piece on this last week in the WSJ entitled ‘The Pinocchio Press’
in which he attempts to dismantle the myth of Fact Checker Objectivity ... he writes:
“the form (Fact Checking) amplifies the bias. It gives journalists much freer rein to express their opinions by allowing them to pretend to be rendering authoritative judgments about the facts. The result, as we’ve seen, is shoddy arguments and shoddier journalism.”
and as for the people like Scott, who are either willing accomplishes to the scam, or unwitting dupes, he explains the scam succinctly this way:
“You see the progression. Journalists claiming to be engaged in “fact checking” make tendentious arguments against Republicans. Left-wing partisans rely on the authority of the “fact checkers” to call their opponents liars or even Nazis.”
Not buying a single word of it.
You just got called out. That’s all you got? I suspect you only buy from those that support your ideology, the facts be damned…
I suspect you only buy from those that support your ideology, the facts be damned…
You suspect, the rest of us know this as fact. He has been like “Old Faithful” by executing this same pattern in just about every conversation. He comes in a expresses his opinion, often times as fact, dismisses an opposition as not equal to his sources, and then continues poking into someone says something personal, then jumps back with his hands in the air and cries “foul”. He’s executing the online version of “Show up at a rally or gathering of people who are from the opposite party, and scream and yell and beat drums until someone gets annoyed enough to do something”.
I got plenty more, Spock. But I just don’t have it in me today to explain and defend why I trust every-news-organization-and-fact-checking-group more than that dude who basically said they’re all wrong in that column you linked to. Some days it just feels like being asked to explain what “blue” is in a court of law.
Jason: you just don’t like it that I am here providing a spirited defense of positions other than your own.
Scooter, “not buying it” is not a spirited defense. It’s not even a weak defense.
You’re right, Miko. It’s nota defense at all. It’s, as I said, me being exasperated at not wanting to explain the obvious to people who aren’t having any of it in the first place. Pick one, man. Criticize me for doggedly arguing a point or for abandoning the discussion—not both.
Your MO is pretty consistent Scott ... You attempt to evade the questions posed that would actually require you to defend your position by changing the topic, or to simply abandon the discussion and move on to another thread.
I have asked you any number of times to make a compelling case for why your ‘Fact Checkers’ should be simply accepted as the arbiters of what is or is not fact when there have been countless articles written which challenges not only their impartiality, but weather they are in fact attempting to scam people into accepting their opinions as authoritative simply because they choose to present it as fact. Not once have you offered anything more than a defense of ‘I don’t trust your sources’ ... or my new favorite ‘I ain’t buying it’.
Sorry Scott, but you don’t get to call your favorite opinion columns FACT, and then out of hand dismiss your opponents as partisan hackery, and expect to not get challenged. Every time you do, I’m going to call you on it.
It’s, as I said, me being exasperated at not wanting to explain the obvious to people who aren’t having any of it in the first place.
You’re right, I’m having none of the scam you and the so-called fact checkers are running here.
To quote you from an earlier thread on this subject ... ‘Get Used to it!’
You want to present those articles it as opinion to support your own arguement, and then engage in a discussion about it, which includes you being as open minded about the rebuttal pieces offered that you demand those of us that disagree with you be, then fine ... I’ll be happy to engage that way. But I’m not letting you get away with presenting opinion as fact, and declaring the arguement settled based on it. It’s vapid pablum, and worse, intellectually dishonest to boot.
Jason: you just don’t like it that I am here providing a spirited defense of positions other than your own.
Ironic, because I get exasperated at you for the exact same things you claim to get exasperated at “us” about. Sorry, you can’t accuse “us” of not listening when you in turn don’t listen.
There’s little point in continuing a discussion if you can’t agree on a set of facts to start with. Like the CBO is non-partsian and mostly trustworthy. Or that when the major fact-checking organizations all agree that something is false, that it’s probably false (or at least you’re not an idiot for believing it to be false). If you don’t have that in common, you end up arguing about what “blue” is.
And, Jason, the only thing that really bugs me about your participation here is when you attack me personally.
Well, Scoot, your personal life is a wreck and provides no credibility to your claims of being a bleeding heart or truly caring about anything. And if we were to agree to anything it would be that MSM media fact checking is biased.
What source would you guys consider credible? You’ve demonstrated you don’t trust journalists, academics, scientists. Unless it has FOX or Heritage in the name, it’s no good with you. How do you expect us to debate with that?
I can point to 15 different people or sources that say the fact checkers found at places like the Washington Post and NY Times are biased, present opinion as fact, and that are no more than a mouth piece for liberal ideology. Just so I am claar on your position Scott, my sources are NOT credible, but yours, which claim the opposite have to be accepted as credible and authoritative, and if those that us who disagree are idiots? Is that a fair representation of your position?
I will point out that once again, you make no arguement for the credibility of your sources as being unbiased and autoritative other than ‘when all (so called) fact checking orgainizations declare something false it PROBABLY IS false’.
And Jim, I pointed to an article written by a liberal, Mickey Kaus, who opines on the trustworthyness of the ‘fact checkers’ at least as it relates to the allegation that Romney’s claims relative to Obama gutting work requirements for Welfare eligibility. I have yet to see anyone take on his arguements other than to say ‘I ain’t buying any of it’ ... He isn’t a FOX commentator or affiliated with Heritage (Though I defy to tell me why the Washington Post or NY Times is any more credible than those sources other than you liberals say it’s so, so we must accept that it so).
The whole point here is that liberals like Scott, and apparently you Jim, want to be able to declare those YOU like to be authritative, and leave the rest of us in position of having to accept that premise or be branded a close minded idiot. At that same time, you fail to even intellectually address the arguements presented by alternative sources, and simply dismiss them out of hand. You are no different than Scott or most other liberals I interact with ... you don’t want to debate ... you don’t want to discuss ... you simply want to everyone who disagrees with you and the sources you rely on as being partisan hacks without ever providing anything other than your reliance on those ‘Fact Checkers’ as authoritative (in your OPINION) as your defense. It’s a transparent scam you all trying to run ... it may have worked in the past but if the Walker recall election proves anything, one of them, is that the majority is on to it, and are much more capable of thinking for themselves about what ‘Facts’ are then you would ever be willing to give them credit for.
Come on Mike ... you can do better than to drag whatever personal garbabe it is you think you know about Scott into this discussion, can’t you?
This a debate about ideas ... stick to those for crying out loud. God knows there is enough material to draw upon there, that personal attacks are gratuitous, debasing, and in the end, reflect poorly on you rather than your intended target.
you can do better than to drag whatever personal garbabe it is you think you know about Scott into this discussion, can’t you?
No, he can’t. Otherwise he wouldn’t resort to it every other day.
I can appreciate the desire to keep the discussion to ideas and ideas alone. I can agree even go so far as to say that it’s probably unhealthy.
When a liberal calls himself a ‘bleeding heart’, and decries conservatives (for their desire to reign in the debt) as bad or evil people, cette lib has already gotten personal. Upon Scott’s claim, I asked him, ‘What have you done to actually help people GET health care?’ His answer was and is null. As I’m sure many conservatives on this list do, I have a laundry list of places that get my donations. I sincerely do not question the motives of some (most maybe?) liberal true bleeding hearts with regard to health care for those in need. I know these people, trust them, etc. We disagree on the path to get there (and their method stomps on the Constitution despite what Roberts says). This constant attack on MY VALUES because I don’t want to borrow any more money…it’s sickening.
I do question the motives of those progressives (socialists) that use the poor as cattle in their progressive agenda. These are the occupiers that come on this blog, call themselves bleeding hearts, then go home at night to play video games and write blog posts advocating drug legalization.
Discussion? Okay, respectfully…tell me why I’m wrong.
Honestly Mike, a statement like ‘your personal life is a mess’ crosses a line for me. Weather someone’s personal life is a mess does nothing to knock down the validity of the arguments made by the person your comments are directed at, and in my opinion, ultimately derails the arguement from one about ideas to one about personality.
Is Scott one who doesn’t live by the ideals that the policies he espouses here are intended to represent? Maybe ... Maybe not. I don’t know ... and frankly, I don’t care. In the end, it’s the ideas themselves that I (and I assume you) disagree with, and not the messenger who espouses them. Even if he lived a life like Mother Teresa, I still would fundamentally disagree with the implementation of Obamacare, because it is the philosophty behind it I disagree with.
Frankly, Mike, I think you owe me an apology. For this and several other personal attacks against me here. It’s unnecessary, it’s irrelevant and its just bad behavior. You seem above to be trying to justify it, but nothing I’ve written justifies how you’ve been acting. I’m surprised you haven’t been reprimanded more seriously by the proprietors, to be honest. I’ve been mixing it up with Owen about things for years and he’s just not enough of a dick to think what you’re doing is ok.
Scott, I truly am sorry that you haven’t found value in spending your own resources helping others rather than using mine.