So Fox News is crap? Check out NPR

[BigPapaVol]

A perfect example of a fact that is just now being reported:

The troop surge is working very effectively. Now, the media has known about it for some time. How many real reports have you seen on it.

This is the kind of story that would be on every news magazine show (60 minutes 20/20 etc.) if it didn't work. Why hasn't the public received a healthy dose of that message until now?

that omission is purely the politics that I'm talking about and NPR is every bit as guilty as all of the networks. They're super sleuths when it supports their point of view and don't care otherwise.

 

[Lexvol]

that omission is purely the politics that I'm talking about and NPR is every bit as guilty as all of the networks. They're super sleuths when it supports their point of view and don't care otherwise.

It is much more newsworthy and profitable if we are losing a war than when we are winning it. That is a sad, but understandable fact.

 

[allvol123]

It is much more newsworthy and profitable if we are losing a war than when we are winning it. That is a sad, but understandable fact.

Also, they have to do the work for their candidate. Can't be talking about how the surge has worked when that goes 180 against one of the Obamassiah's ideas.

 

[volinbham]

If we are going to diss polls for being biased, let's understand the background of those running the polls:

Scott Rasmussen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why don't we start a running poll on NPR. If you hear or see a story you think is biased, let everyone know. If you hear or see one that is balanced, let everyone know. Politics-related. In fact, I'll start a new thread in a minute.

Actually, I wasn't dissing polls for being biased. I think they are incomplete "point in time" information but most of the majors (including Rasmussen) are relatively objective.

There is nothing in the Wiki entry to suggest that Rasmussen polls are skewed to present a particular point of view. I bet if we dig into the backgrounds of those at Harris we might find some are Democrats.

As for NPR's slant, I've already stated my view. It is fine reporting but the slant comes in a weak vs. strong perspective rather than a political party perspective that is more clear on a Fox or MSNBC. I'd be glad to find stories that fit that view if that qualifies for the running poll you suggest.

 

[WA_Vol]

I watched the polls leading up to the Gore/Bush election, and Kerry/Bush and they were reasonably accurate. If you watch the election news all their projections on the winner of each race is based on their polling, they are accurate or they wouldnt use them.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I watched the polls leading up to the Gore/Bush election, and Kerry/Bush and they were reasonably accurate. If you watch the election news all their projections on the winner of each race is based on their polling, they are accurate or they wouldnt use them.

There is an enormous difference between "who you voting for", which has a binary answer, and the list of questions regarding which news source is most trustworthy.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

The article was about the rising cost of food and fuels affecting people...they've been doing this series for a little while. They just found a family who gives context to the numbers from the poll that they helped conduct. While the family sound exorbitantly lazy to me-the basic premise of the story that people who are already on the poverty line are being pushed over the tipping point, seems to be spot on.

The woman is 40 years old, doesnt have a HS degree, is obviously not fit to do any physical work and has never worked a day in her life, and she is now mad that she cant afford the basics...

This is an example what what can go wrong in the USA 21st Century Economy... If you dont have an education or are physically unable to do anything (dig a ditch, drill a well, mow a lawn, deliver a package, fabricate, etc) Then you are going to be left behind. And according to Obama, we are now required to provide everything for this woman? I am a really nice guy, but why I am responsible to help this woman?

Why doesnt NPR interview me?? I am 27, worked hard all my life to get an education, I hold a good corporate job, I recently purchased a home, I recycle everything, I have rain barrels to collect free rain water, I grow my own Veggies, I eat well, and I put money away in my 401k plan. I am currently an American sucess story, but I guess NPR doesnt want to hear my story, they want the Train Wreck in progress story.

 

[volinbham]

The woman is 40 years old, doesnt have a HS degree, is obviously not fit to do any physical work and has never worked a day in her life, and she is now mad that she cant afford the basics...

This is an example what what can go wrong in the USA 21st Century Economy... If you dont have an education or are physically unable to do anything (dig a ditch, drill a well, mow a lawn, deliver a package, fabricate, etc) Then you are going to be left behind. And according to Obama, we are now required to provide everything for this woman? I am a really nice guy, but why I am responsible to help this woman?

Why doesnt NPR interview me?? I am 27, worked hard all my life to get an education, I hold a good corporate job, I recently purchased a home, I recycle everything, I have rain barrels to collect free rain water, I grow my own Veggies, I eat well, and I put money away in my 401k plan. I am currently an American sucess story, but I guess NPR doesnt want to hear my story, they want the Train Wreck in progress story.

Interesting point - if this series is picking people based on how affected they are by the current economic conditions then it is clearly slanted - the whole series is.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Interesting point - if this series is picking people based on how affected they are by the current economic conditions then it is clearly slanted - the whole series is.

They need to balance it by doing a story on one of the millions of college grads pouring out of our universities every year and lining up for good corporate jobs as baby boomers retire. Everyone I know with a college degree has had no problems finding and keeping a job, and once they go looking for a new job after working for a few years, they are getting nice 20-30% pay increases.

It sucks to see the hundreds and thousands of $$ pouring out of my paycheck and into taxes and SS, so that we can support some 40 year old obese woman with no eduaction and has never worked a day in her life, so that she can drive around and chit-chat on her cell phone getting in everyones way cause she isnt in a hurrry to go anywhere. Sorry just ranting here

 

[TennNC]

A perfect example of a fact that is just now being reported:

The troop surge is working very effectively.

To do what?

How can we "win" this war? What does "winning" look like when the reason we went into Iraq (6 years ago, a trillion dollars back, and 4,000+ US troops and a whole lot more innocent Iraqis ago) proved to be untrue?

 

[KB5252]

To do what?

How can we "win" this war? What does "winning" look like when the reason we went into Iraq (6 years ago, a trillion dollars back, and 4,000+ US troops and a whole lot more innocent Iraqis ago) proved to be untrue?

To help quell the violence and get the Iraqi people on their way to a functioning government.

 

[volsforever27]

To do what?

How can we "win" this war? What does "winning" look like when the reason we went into Iraq (6 years ago, a trillion dollars back, and 4,000+ US troops and a whole lot more innocent Iraqis ago) proved to be untrue?

Because what's happening right now in this country is what your party claimed woldn't happen. Violence is down, and yet your party (and candidate) refuses to admit the surge is working.

 

[TennNC]

To help quell the violence and get the Iraqi people on their way to a functioning government.

oh - so we went there to give them democracy, which they didn't ask for. we better get moving - there are quite a few other countries who could use democracy they're not asking for - China, Cuba, N. Korea, much of Africa...

 

[KB5252]

oh - so we went there to give them democracy, which they didn't ask for. we better get moving - there are quite a few other countries who could use democracy they're not asking for - China, Cuba, N. Korea, much of Africa...

We are where we are now. You asked what the troop surge will do and I responded. Many people other than Obama actually want us to succeed in giving the Iraqis the best shot at a working government possible. No matter your stance before the war we are responsible now and should not let Iraq fall into chaos just because it was not the democrats idea.

 

[Lexvol]

oh - so we went there to give them democracy, which they didn't ask for. we better get moving - there are quite a few other countries who could use democracy they're not asking for - China, Cuba, N. Korea, much of Africa...

I think we would certainly prefer a democracy, but I would I would substitute "basic human rights".

Now, we will never agree on the real reason we went into Iraq. So there is really no use discussing that again, but if we were so concerned with imperialism we would have sent troops to guard the oil fields and we would have bombed the hell out of everything else.

 

[TennNC]

I don't doubt McCain understands military strategy better than Obama. So, I propose that when Obama becomes president, he appoints McCain special military strategist - just perhaps not in Iraq, b/c that could be bad for everyone.

 

[KB5252]

I don't doubt McCain understands military strategy better than Obama. So, I propose that when Obama becomes president, he appoints McCain special military strategist - just perhaps not in Iraq, b/c that could be bad for everyone.

Go back and check McCain's record. He was not happy with the strategy and was probably the most vocal politician calling for the pres to listen to his commanders on the ground and get more troops in Iraq. Now that we did go through with the surge it seems to me he was right about it all along. That is the kind of guy I would want in command if we were at war, which we are. Not a guy who decides policy before he goes to visit with those in command.

 

[allvol123]

I don't doubt McCain understands military strategy better than Obama. So, I propose that when Obama becomes president, he appoints McCain special military strategist - just perhaps not in Iraq, b/c that could be bad for everyone.

Why? McCain supported the surge, you know, that thing that worked.

 

[TennNC]

Go back and check McCain's record. He was not happy with the strategy and was probably the most vocal politician calling for the pres to listen to his commanders on the ground and get more troops in Iraq. Now that we did go through with the surge it seems to me he was right about it all along. That is the kind of guy I would want in command if we were at war, which we are. Not a guy who decides policy before he goes to visit with those in command.

again, that's military strategy, not foreign policy strategy. He knows how to win a military battle better than Obama, but I don't know if he knows whether winning that military battle is actually better for our country. And I'd rather have a POTUS who knows when to go to war than how to win a war - that's what military advisors are for.

 

[volinbham]

To do what?

How can we "win" this war? What does "winning" look like when the reason we went into Iraq (6 years ago, a trillion dollars back, and 4,000+ US troops and a whole lot more innocent Iraqis ago) proved to be untrue?

This crap again? There were a myriad of reasons for going of which WMD was a major one. The overarching reaching goal was an attempt to stabilize the reach through removing SH and replacing him with a fledgling democracy - therefore winning "looks" like sufficient progress towards stabilizing Iraq.

again, that's military strategy, not foreign policy strategy. He knows how to win a military battle better than Obama, but I don't know if he knows whether winning that military battle is actually better for our country. And I'd rather have a POTUS who knows when to go to war than how to win a war - that's what military advisors are for.

I firmly believe stabilizing Iraq is essential to our foreign policy. McCain does as well. Obama doesn't share that belief apparently - he firmly believes getting out as quickly as possible is essential to our foreign policy.

What good are military advisors if winning the war is not as important to you as getting out ASAP is? Clearly favoring withdrawal over winning impacts foreign policy - these issues (outcome in Iraq) and larger foreign policy cannot be separated.

 

[TennNC]

This crap again? There were a myriad of reasons for going of which WMD was a major one. The overarching reaching goal was an attempt to stabilize the reach through removing SH and replacing him with a fledgling democracy - therefore winning "looks" like sufficient progress towards stabilizing Iraq.



I firmly believe stabilizing Iraq is essential to our foreign policy. McCain does as well. Obama doesn't share that belief apparently - he firmly believes getting out as quickly as possible is essential to our foreign policy.

What good are military advisors if winning the war is not as important to you as getting out ASAP is? Clearly favoring withdrawal over winning impacts foreign policy - these issues (outcome in Iraq) and larger foreign policy cannot be separated.

The word "crap" in my definition should be used for things such as committing to war without absolute proof that it's in the best interest of the country.

 

[volinbham]

again, that's military strategy, not foreign policy strategy. He knows how to win a military battle better than Obama, but I don't know if he knows whether winning that military battle is actually better for our country. And I'd rather have a POTUS who knows when to go to war than how to win a war - that's what military advisors are for.

Can you explain how not winning this military battle would have been better? What do you think would have happened in Iraq without the surge and as a result in the region currently and in the near (10 years) future?

Unfortunately, neither candidate gets to choose "when to go to war" in this scenario. It is not hypothetical-land it is real. Obama's judgement about going may have the edge but his judgement about how to handle the situation we are in does not.

He's taking a page out of the Bush play book with his "knowing what I know now I would have still made the same decision" approach to the surge. He refuses to acknowledge a key shift in strategy that he opposed was the right choice among a series of bad choices. If he actually believes that, we are really screwed if he's elected. If it's just political cover, well then he's no better than any other politician and we still don't know where he stands.

I just don't see how that gives him any more foreign policy cred than McCain has.

 

[KB5252]

again, that's military strategy, not foreign policy strategy. He knows how to win a military battle better than Obama, but I don't know if he knows whether winning that military battle is actually better for our country. And I'd rather have a POTUS who knows when to go to war than how to win a war - that's what military advisors are for.

As a man who has been through the hell that war brings personally I think I would trust his judgment on the issue. If you have been through it and lived you have better perspective than those who didn't right? Now just because Obama was against the Iraq war doesn't mean he was right. There were plenty of people on both sides of the isle who thought it was based on the intelligence. To me it would seem a negative that he was against it when so many others saw the threat. Yes intelligence was flawed but that was not known at the time, even by Obama. That gives me pause to think he may be weak on military action and at a very pivotal moment in American history.

 

[KB5252]

The word "crap" in my definition should be used for things such as committing to war without absolute proof that it's in the best interest of the country.

If you wait for absolute proof many times it is too late to avert disaster.

 

[volinbham]

The word "crap" in my definition should be used for things such as committing to war without absolute proof that it's in the best interest of the country.

There will never be absolute proof of this.