American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439082]
Based on your yardstick do these two reports make the CBO anti-Obama ?

[/QUOTE]Not sure who "you folks" are an I am an independent thinking voter. You're a partisan so it's quite understandable that you would not understand or pretend not to understand. Unlike Fox, the CBO reports numbers that are favorable for and against Obama, that in itself makes them fair and balance. Unlike Fox they have no axe to grind and don't spend their time promoting any candidate or issues. If you think Fox is not anti Obama, good for you. I say that the data on this is crystal clear for all to see. This is the same network during the 2012 elections, despite the contrarian polling repeatedly told their viewers that Romney would win by a landslide resulting in a classic election night massive fail for the world to see.

Obviously I am not going to convince but you're certainly not going to convince me that Fox is not anti-Obama.

[QUOTE=RcCollins;439084]Not sure who "you folks" are an I am an independent thinking voter. You're a partisan so it's quite understandable that you would not understand or pretend not to understand. Unlike Fox, the CBO reports numbers that are favorable for and against Obama, that in itself makes them fair and balance. Unlike Fox they have no axe to grind and don't spend their time promoting any candidate or issues. If you think Fox is not anti Obama, good for you. I say that the data on this is crystal clear for all to see. This is the same network during the 2012 elections, despite the contrarian polling repeatedly told their viewers that Romney would win by a landslide resulting in a classic election night massive fail for the world to see.

Obviously I am not going to convince but you're certainly not going to convince me that Fox is not anti-Obama.[/QUOTE]It is neither your job nor mine to convince anyone Fox is or is not biased when it comes to Obama. The facts speak for themselves and as your stated yard stick is no favorable Obama posts that could hardly put you in the "independent thinker" category IMHO. As stated before, the major news organization, ABC CBS NBC, are over whelming in the bag for Obama. You should ask yourself if this is what new organizations are intended to be? It was my impression they were to inform the public in a fair and impartial manner not take political sides or disseminate political propaganda.

[URL]http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/14/fox-news-barack-obama-media-opinions-contributors-s-robert-lichter.html[/URL]

See the link and draw your own conclusions.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439085]It is neither your job nor mine to convince anyone Fox is or is not biased when it comes to Obama. The facts speak for themselves and as your stated yard stick is no favorable Obama posts that could hardly put you in the "independent thinker" category IMHO. As stated before, the major news organization, ABC CBS NBC, are over whelming in the bag for Obama. You should ask yourself if this is what new organizations are intended to be? It was my impression they were to inform the public in a fair and impartial manner not take political sides or disseminate political propaganda.

[URL]http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/14/fox-news-barack-obama-media-opinions-contributors-s-robert-lichter.html[/URL]

See the link and draw your own conclusions.[/QUOTE]The yard stick you're using is not mine but your own incorrect interpretation. Relax, go back and read the genesis on the discussion. I answered the question being repeatedly asked which was if Fox was strictly anti-Obama or not, that was it. You are just like the many other partisan talking head throwing every thing else in the pot that has no bearing on the question being asked. Even if everything else you're saying is true and I say it is not, it still would not result in Fox not being Anti-Obama. I have drawn my own conclusion and it is that Fox is Anti-Obama, this is undisputable by any objective standard. I now return you to regular programing.

Let me wrap up this latest exposition of Doppel's dishonesty and depravity. He started with lies about ACA grandfather provisions and US vs. Europe unemployment rates, in an effort to discredit Obama. He ran from his lies and he ended with more lies. Here is the Eurostat definition of unemployment, which he falsely claimed he posted. And below, the U3 definition used by BLS. As I posted before, the US and Europe use a standardized ILO definition. There is no part-time employment in either.

[QUOTE]
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_SDDS/en/une_esms.htm

Unemployed persons are all persons 15 to 74 years of age (16 to 74 years in ES, IT and the UK) who were not employed during the reference week, had actively sought work during the past four weeks and were ready to begin working immediately or within two weeks.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]
http://www.bls.gov/cps/faq.htm

Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.
[/QUOTE]Thus the US vs. Europe unemployment comparisons in the media are valid apples to apples comparisons, and clearly show the US doing better than Europe. But Doppel can't stand to admit the US is doing better, so he posts lies like the European number is a U6-like number, or claims the media reporting such stories are "biased" in favor of Obama, even when Fox News itself reports these stories:

Unemployment falls sharply in US, rises in Europe
[URL]http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/03/unemployment-falls-sharply-in-us-rises-in-europe/[/URL]

All readers can judge for themselves whether Doppel's posts reflect honesty and integrity. Someone asked: Who cares? I ask: Do we give false information a pass, or do we call it out? I will now ignore Doppel for awhile, again.

[QUOTE=Esten;439087] I ask: Do we give false information a pass, or do we call it out? I will now ignore Doppel for awhile, again.[/QUOTE]Posters on this forum are loath to give false information a "pass". You are the king of false information. If you cannot find false information to link to, you simply fabricate it. That is why every one of your posts elicits a response from many posters, not just Doppelganger.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=Tres3;439089]Posters on this forum are loath to give false information a "pass". You are the king of false information. If you cannot find false information to link to, you simply fabricate it. That is why every one of your posts elicits a response from many posters, not just Doppelganger.[/QUOTE]Let's see if you can post a few examples of my false information. Otherwise you will join Doppel as another right wing liar, guilty of the very behavior you profess to condemn.

[QUOTE=Esten;439090]Let's see if you can post a few examples of my false information. Otherwise you will join Doppel as another right wing liar, guilty of the very behavior you profess to condemn.[/QUOTE]I would phrase it differently from Tres. The false information falls into the category of Clinton's statement "I did not have sex with that woman.".

The best examples I can think of are Warren Buffet taking a big hit if the Buffet rule were implemented, and blaming George Bush for tax increases that occurred on January 1, 2013. Maybe in some bizarre, legalistic sense you can make your case. But using common sense, these positions are ridiculous and represent false information. I still don't know whether you actually believe things like this. I'm coming around to Jackson's point of view. You probably don't believe everything you write, but instead are trying to make a case or confuse the issue, like a politician or a very aggressive trial lawyer. You're not necessarily fabricating information, but you are distorting it.

A well known conservative, Rupert Murdoch, controls Fox News. He is not a native of the United States, but became an American citizen so that he would be allowed to own American media properties. He is a billionaire, and Fox News puts him in a position to influence the political process, much more so than, say, than the Koch brothers. If a political candidate or party wants to run an advertisement on television, they have to identify it as such and pay megabucks for it. Sean Hannity on the other hand can do a hatchet job on someone and Murdoch will actually make money from the commercials.

So, my question, to those who hate Fox or believe big money is ruining the political process: Do you believe Murdoch should be forced to divest Fox News, and if not should the FCC remove its license to operate?

I'm curious why you're so obsessed with Fox and its programming, and whether you just want to complain about it, or whether you think something should actually be done.

It is all about free speech. They can say whatever they like. Even if it is Not True.

Same as the Politicians running for election or the ballot measures.

The ballots measures really piss me off. They Fraudulently say lies that will eventually make them money.

There should be some checks and balances.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439092]A well known conservative, Rupert Murdoch, controls Fox News. He is not a native of the United States, but became an American citizen so that he would be allowed to own American media properties. He is a billionaire, and Fox News puts him in a position to influence the political process, much more so than, say, than the Koch brothers. If a political candidate or party wants to run an advertisement on television, they have to identify it as such and pay megabucks for it. Sean Hannity on the other hand can do a hatchet job on someone and Murdoch will actually make money from the commercials.

So, my question, to those who hate Fox or believe big money is ruining the political process: Do you believe Murdoch should be forced to divest Fox News, and if not should the FCC remove its license to operate?

I'm curious why you're so obsessed with Fox and its programming, and whether you just want to complain about it, or whether you think something should actually be done.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;439093]It is all about free speech. They can say whatever they like. Even if it is Not True.

Same as the Politicians running for election or the ballot measures.

The ballots measures really piss me off. They Fraudulently say lies that will eventually make them money.

There should be some checks and balances.[/QUOTE]What do you mean by ballot measures and checks and balances?

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439092]A well known conservative, Rupert Murdoch, controls Fox News. He is not a native of the United States, but became an American citizen so that he would be allowed to own American media properties. He is a billionaire, and Fox News puts him in a position to influence the political process, much more so than, say, than the Koch brothers. If a political candidate or party wants to run an advertisement on television, they have to identify it as such and pay megabucks for it. Sean Hannity on the other hand can do a hatchet job on someone and Murdoch will actually make money from the commercials.

So, my question, to those who hate Fox or believe big money is ruining the political process: Do you believe Murdoch should be forced to divest Fox News, and if not should the FCC remove its license to operate?

I'm curious why you're so obsessed with Fox and its programming, and whether you just want to complain about it, or whether you think something should actually be done.[/QUOTE]Fox News is entertainment and positive reinforcement for brainwashed right wingers such as Jackson and his fascist fanboys; it is not serious journalism by an stretch of the imagination. That being said, it is a subscription cable television station so anybody that does not like it can simply change the channel (there is room in the cable lineup for everybody) . As far as Fox News influencing the political process, they hated on Obama and predicted his imminent demise 24/7 prior to the 2012 election; needless to say Obama slaughtered Romney. Although I haven't seen Fox News in a long time, I imagine they are bashing ObamaCare full stop 24/7/365; they can spin their tires all they want to the delight of Jackson and his fascist fanboys because the bottom line remains that ObamaCare is a smashing success and will NEVER be repealed.

Punter-.

That's a fine attempt at a history lesson and if you had paid attention in your 100 level comparative politics class you would know that beginning with FDR's New Deal and finalizing with Johnson's Great Society and Civil Rights programs the placement on the political spectrum of the two main "catch all" political parties in the USA switched places (both are right of center, currently the Republicans are slightly further right than the Democrats).

Every election time when they also have ballot measures to vote on, most times there is a measure that you know or think you know; because it is so confusing to understand, that they are lying about.

The Alaskan pipeline is one that comes to mind. They said the gas price would go down when it is built. It did not go down. The first thing they did was to sell the gas to Japan or was it China.

They lied to us to make money.

That was Fraud.

In time they did put a stop to that practice or so that is what they tell us.

Kind of like the same shit they are trying to sell us about the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Last year the United States produced more gas than they ever have in the past. The prices have not gone down.
Chevron is selling their regular gas in my area of California for $4.29.
They say they are switching from winter gas to summer gas. What a crock of shit that is.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439094]What do you mean by ballot measures and checks and balances?[/QUOTE]

Sounds like Rush is out.

[URL]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/18/1293043/-Rush-Limbaugh-Is-In-Ruins-Bad-News-Coming-From-Every-Direction-Including-The-Right?detail=email[/URL]

ESTEN DECLARES A BET.

ESTEN DECLARES ALL OPPOSING ARGUMENTS NULL AND VOID.

ESTEN DELCARES HIMSELF THE WINNER.

THE BET:

[QUOTE=Esten;438999]
#1. I claim that regulations issued to implement the ACA allowed insurance companies to continue selling certain policies that did not meet all ACA requirements (i.e. grandfathered plans). And that some policies were cancelled because insurance companies chose to (were not forced to) discontinue them. You have denied this. I'll wager $1000.
[/QUOTE]HERE WAS MY RESPONSE ON #1.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439001]#1 Total misinformation as always.

Is there a provision for "grandfathered" plans in the law, yes but it's not available to anyone due to the Obama Administration's rules governing who qualifies for grandfather status.

It's Obama not the insurance companies.

So I guess it's ok for you to assert there is a grandfathered clause in ObamaCare but due to Obama's regulations restricting whose plan can qualify for that status you would have to be a one horned, one eyed, flying purple people eater. Not many qualifying for that one.

Check out the link it explains it pretty well.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/31/obama-officials-in-2010-93-million-americans-will-be-unable-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/

This from the guy who said "no one was forced to buy ObamaCare"![/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Esten;438999]
#2. I claim that the commonly cited European unemployment rates more closely resemble the US U3 (not U6 as you claim). I'll wager $1000.[/QUOTE]HERE IS MY RESPONSE ON #2.

As far as US U6 being closer to European unemployment figures, the short answer the Europeans do a better job of including some portions of those we count under U6 in their base calculation for unemployment, ie long term unemployed. Here is the link to Eurostat's methodology.

[URL]http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_SDDS/en/une_esms.htm[/URL]

I also noticed you quoted the International Labor Organization, would that be " the UN specialized agency which seeks the promotion of social justice and internationally recognized human and labor rights", by the way I took that little quote right off the web site!

Point of fact our BLS, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, as well as Statistical Office of the European Communities-Eurostat, all adjust international data on unemployed using a common conceptual basis in an attempt to "standardize "or "harmonize" the data. The US, Europe, and other countries don't use the same methodologies regarding what they include or disallow to calculate unemployment as you attempted to falsely infer. If everyone used the identical calculations methods and perimeters there would be no need for this standardization or harmonization now would there?

At the end of the day Esten you only deal in half-truths or outright deception.

Like Bill Clinton:

"I did not have sex with that woman" attempting to infer a blow job is not sex, good luck with that.

Or during his deposition:

"That depends on the what the definition of "is", is".

That's you Esten, the Artful Dodger.

Excellent article on why U6 not U3 should be used to gauge the economy.

[URL]http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2012/10/16/why-jack-welch-has-a-point-about-unemployment-numbers/[/URL]

Excellent article on why U3 is off.

[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/19/unemployment-rate-wrong_n_3619152.html[/URL]