Viewing Tool Provides Scrutiny of Debate Footage

The New York Times has an interesting tool for reviewing the debate. Alongside the actual video, there is a transcription (which you can click on to go to that section of the video), a search tool (that counts the number of usages by each candidate), a topic segmentation view, and even a fact checker that links to corrections.

Comments

Stop confusing me!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Canadian English Language debates were just last night as well, you insensitive clod!

I think they missed some "maverick" uses in there.

[damn_registrars]

I will have to watch the debate again, but I'm pretty sure Palin referred to herself as a "maverick" at least once in the debate, but I cannot find it by using the tool to search for "maverick".

A fact checker?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

How Partisan! If the NYT weren't a damn liberal rag, it would provide a feeling checker next to the fact checker, for balance.

Re:A fact checker?

[spun]

The NYT is quite moderate by any reasonable standard. I suspect that you are pretty far to the right of normal, mainstream America if you think the NYT is left wing. You don't get to redefine the political spectrum to suit your extremism.

Re:A fact checker?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Actually, I'm what you would almost certainly call rather left of center(with some moderately libertarian elements); but I apparently suck at getting the tone of sarcastic humor right. I though, apparently naively, that somebody arguing that facts and feelings ought to receive equal weight would either be ignored or laughed at. Similarly, I assumed that the term "damn liberal rag" would be so obviously inapplicable to the NYT(especially its editorials) that it would be an instant red flag. It actually creeps me out a bit. How extreme would I have to have been to be obviously joking?

Re:A fact checker?

[Straif]

And yet every poll shows that more and more people see a very liberal bias in the media, and according to a Rasmussen poll from last year, the Times is seen as the most liberal (of included newspapers) with over 40% perceiving a liberal bias and just 20% seeing it as objective (11% thought it was conservative).

The bias is so obvious to people that it was the only paper to actually be rated as having a more liberal bias than conservative one by liberals themselves, and they as a group see every media outlet as having a conservative bias.

So I guess it's pretty easy to see what side of the political divide you call on.

But hey, those are just the trends in pretty much every published media related poll so I guess the pollsters are just having problems finding those people who have your "reasonable" standards.

Re:A fact checker?

[lytles]

shut-up steven :)

Re:A fact checker?

[Tyger]

I've heard the liberal media moniker aimed at the NYT in the past. Probably by the far right extremists. For the records though I caught your sarcasm.

Re:A fact checker?

[spun]

Oh man, I'm sorry. How can you parody that which is already a parody of itself? People on the right really believe what you wrote, I've seen them say it again and again.

Re:A fact checker?

[spun]

Have a link for that Rasmussen poll? I'd like to see how they asked the questions. Besides that one poll, can you reference any others?

Re:A fact checker?

[Straif]

I believe this is the summary you're looking for. You'll have to dig a bit deeper to see the actual questions.

A Rasmussen report on just the NYT favorability ratings. Lots of interesting numbers in that one, none of which looks good for the Times.

A Rasmussen poll specificall about this election: 49/14 Media will actively try to help Obama/McCain

Here's a Zogby poll summary from last year: results 64/28 liberal/conservative bias.

From the Pew report. The Times is rated at 18% for credability.

Another Rasmussen report that shows over 50% believe the media tried to activly hurt Palin.

A write up of a Harvard study with some other studies referenced at the bottom.

These studies are not too hard to find. Just Google media bias and they pop up all over the place. The Media bias Wiki page also references some more studies.

Re:A fact checker?

[Mr. Slippery]

And yet every poll shows that more and more people see a very liberal bias in the media

When you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes widely believed.

The far right has been spreading this "liberal media" bullshit since the late 1960s, as an excuse for Nixon's problems.

Mainstream media is owned by large corporations. It is unabashedly capitalist. Its journalists are center to right on economic issues, and go to business leaders for their information - almost never do we hear from labor leaders or from consumer advocates in the mainstream press.

The corporate media is firmly on the right.

On foreign policy, the way the MSM rolled over during the Iraq invasion shows that again, they go with the conservatives, loving that aggressive and militaristic policy. War makes good stories, you know?

However, mainstream media is based in cities, and journalism is (or at least used to be) practiced largely by educated professionals. Its perspective is therefore more cosmopolitan, and less likely to follow the stream of ignorance and bigotry that constitutes most of "social conservatism" - the homophobia, the racism, the sexism, the preference for superstition over science. So if you're a social conservative, you see the media as biased against you.

Of course, if you're a conservative, you see reality as biased against you. Sorry.

Re:A fact checker?

[sumdumass]

You can live that fallacy all you want.

The problem isn't who is being asked questions or giving the reporters the answers. It is the over tones of the reporting from the reporters themselves. The NYT is famous for politicizing their reporting just to create a controversy and it is apparent to some more then others. It sells papers. You see, if I said "there are other opinions more common and different then yours on this subject", I have set pretty much a neutral tone in explaining that others think differently. If I said, "you are a liar, everyone else believes the exact opposite of what you said and you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground", I have set the tone completely different. Of course this was obvious by design in order for you to see the contrast. In reality, if I used something like "well, what you say is a valid point and probably supported by a number of facts outside the obvious ones you mentions, but I know a lot of self proclaimed and proud liberals who seem to think otherwise" you would be hard pressed to take anything away from that other then I know others who don't believe you. But, if you were in support for your opinion, you would take offense to my contradiction and think I'm leaning to the right. If you were towards the opposite of your comment, you might think I'm supporting your statements. If you were indifferent, then you would take only the point that I know others who disagree away. The NYT uses wording like this to purposely inject political attitudes and tones into coverage to sell papers and create controversy.

The reason many people think they are left leaning is because they tend to take it that way more often then not as well as the subscribers to newsprint seem to be more right then anything. The left, or a lot on the left seem to pride themselves (recently) on getting their news from fake news shows like John Stewart's, and citing a poll that they have never bothered reading well enough to understand that the so called informed people got their news from more then two sources but also cited watching the daily show with John Stewart.

BTW, the rolling over in the Iraq invasion wasn't because of wanting to sell papers. News always happens and the MSM will always be covering it. They rolled over on it because for the previous 10 to 15 years, the exact same saber rattling stuff had been said but the previous administration and administration officials. I suspect you were too busy popping zits and chasing Suzie Shallowthroat around to have been paying attention. That's not a bad thing, but your lack of experience or perspective doesn't equal some grand conspiracy either. The real opposition to the invasion didn't start becoming apparent until after it when more and more people who haven't heard all the BS over Iraq spouted by the first Bush and Clinton started questioning the stuff and finding answers that didn't match.

Re:A fact checker?

[Mr. Slippery]

The problem isn't who is being asked questions or giving the reporters the answers. It is the over tones of the reporting from the reporters themselves.

But what you describe has nothing to do with left/right bias. It's all about - as you say - creating controversy and selling papers.

They rolled over on it because for the previous 10 to 15 years, the exact same saber rattling stuff had been said but the previous administration and administration officials. I suspect you were too busy popping zits and chasing Suzie Shallowthroat around to have been paying attention.

Excuse me, sonny, but I marched against the first Gulf War. (I'm not saying I did a lot, that I was some great activist. But I was there.) The Congressional fsck-up that authorized it occurred on my 21st birthday. By the time Clinton came along, my zits were pretty much cleared up.

And I watched with dismay (and did a little minor activism) as Clinton pulled the Democratic party to the right and into an aggressive, brutal, and stupid foreign policy in the GOP mode. (It's not just on economic issues that "Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we've had in a while.")

The real opposition to the invasion didn't start becoming apparent until after it.

Bullshit. Millions of people demonstrated against W's war before the invasion. I was one of them. (Again, I'm not saying I did a lot. But I was there, and probably got my name on a list somewhere when I organized an anti-war poetry reading and sent recordings of it to Baltimore's congresscritters.)

Coverage of the pre-invasion protests in the corporate media: diddly-squat.

Don't even TRY to tell me I wasn't paying attention, when you apparently didn't even know that there was a significant anti-war movement until after the invasion.

And why didn't you know? Because the conservative MSM was totally on board with the war.

Re:A fact checker?

[Straif]

Sorry too much cutting and pasting on the way out of the office.

I think this was the link to the Pew study from above.

Re:A fact checker?

[Straif]

If you look above you can see polls done by a variety of non-partisan agencies, uniformly showing a perceived liberal bias.

Using studies and reports from one a single admittedly "progressive" media watchdog organization does not really do too much to strengthen you case.

Those were only a small sample of the reports and polls I found with a simple search but if the source was decidedly conservative I excluded them, no matter how valid their methodology, simply because I was looking for unbiased sources.

Surprisingly, in all of the studies I looked at none found a widespread conservative bias.

Re:A fact checker?

[Straif]

And for a very simple example of how liberal bias has manage to infiltrate the media all you have to do is look at the AP style book; the guide used by all journalists for the Associated Press.

abortion: Use anti-abortion instead of pro-life and abortion rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice. Avoid abortionist, which connotes a person who performs clandestine abortions; use a term such as abortion doctor
or abortion practitioner.

By defining one of the two side of a issue as the "anti" side you are taking an obvious position. The same problem would have been true if they had gone with Pro-life and anti-life (which would just as clearly fit the definition of the purpose of an abortion). It's a small example but I believe a very clear one as to how simple it is to slip bias into the media.

Re:A fact checker?

[something_wicked_thi]

I think your example is a poor one. Anti-abortion is actually perfectly descriptive of the mission of the pro-lifers. You'll notice they also avoided the loaded liberal term "pro-choice" or "pro-abortion" (which seems to connote someone who thinks abortions are good). Personally, I think abortions are awful things, but the right to have one should exist. So I think abortion rights well describes my position and probably most "pro-choice" people. So no, the terms do not indicate any bias in the media. You might have an argument if it said anti-abortion rights, if only because it would then imply that abortion was a right the anti-abortionists were against. As another example, do you think that anti-gun control is loaded toward supporting gun control? I think it is telling that you point out clearly unbiased language as something proving a liberal bias.

Re:A fact checker?

[Anonymous Coward]

And how many of those 40% have actually *read* the New York Times, or any newspaper for that matter?

Re:A fact checker?

[Mr. Slippery]

If you look above you can see polls done by a variety of non-partisan agencies, uniformly showing a perceived liberal bias.

Because people have been told for almost forty years that there is one. The big lie technique works; the polls you link to show that.

The question is not, "Do many people believe that a liberal bias exists"? The question is, "Does a liberal bias exist?"

Asking whether people believe there is a bias is like asking whether people believe in god(s); it says nothing about the actual reality of the entity under consideration.

Using studies and reports from one a single admittedly "progressive" media watchdog organization does not really do too much to strengthen you case.

If you have other studies that address this question - studies that look at the politcial orientations of journalists, and that look at whether they get their information from sources aligned with labor or with capital - please, present them. The ones you link to show only that the myth of "liberal media" is widely believed, not that it is accurate.

Re:A fact checker?

[Straif]

According to Pew 35% of National journalists self desribe themselves as liberal, 7% as conservative.

And thats just their admitted bias but in studies of voting patterns, of which there have also been many, journalist has consistently voted Democrat even when the vast majority of the populace has voted Republican, upwards of 80%. I'm running to a movie so here is a link referencing the other studies.

The 80% number is also pretty consistent with donation patterns among journalists as well as journalism professors.

And just to get back to the point, of all media sources the New York Times was the one rated as the most liberal by the journalists themselves, even those who refuse to admit their liberal ideology while only voting for the most liberal candidates.

So basically this just fits in nicely with all the studies that find that liberals have a harder time identifying liberal bias either externally or their own; some of which are linked above.

If it walks like a duck...

Re:A fact checker?

[Straif]

And how exactly is Abortion Rights less liberal than pro-choice? If anything the former more strongly implies that abortions are a good thing (not the actual procedure but the unfettered access).

And "Anti-abortion rights" is actually a pretty common used term when referring to pro-life in articles.

And yes, if you use the term anti-gun control it is favoring the gun control side. Since gun control is an actual constitutional right clearly stated out your example actually proves my point. By referring to people who directly oppose the 2nd amendment as 'Gun control' activists they are softening their side, and I have no issue with that. Technically they are "anti-2nd ammendment" activist but once again, that doesn't sound good and is also not the way they self describe.

Whenever you routinely take one side of an issue and refer to them as the anti- side you are by default claiming the pro side as the norm. It's not a hard concept to understand.

Re:A fact checker?

[m509272]

You've got to be kidding. I consider myself middle of the road. I looked forward to the tech sections and the travel, etc. I canceled the paper months ago. First the blatant Hillary bashing, then the refusal to publish McCain's piece while publishing Obama's. They are without a doubt in the liberal media camp.

Re:A fact checker?

[sumdumass]

But what you describe has nothing to do with left/right bias. It's all about - as you say - creating controversy and selling papers.

Not really, a good reporter can just put the story together and get the information out. People buy newspapers to get the story, not to get the reporter's slant on the story. But even more obvious is where a series of reporters, consciously or subconsciously, do this over a repeated number of times. It could be the result of not having good reporters or it could be the result of a poor editorial staff who picks the stories. It creates and allows the appearance of a bias even if it isn't the official slant of the paper. No one that I know of is claiming that the corporate overloads at the NYT is causing the bias, but it is obvious that it's there in some situations. I don't read enough of the NYT to know if it is or isn't always there or if it always slants one way or another but the effect is that people see the bias and make their own conclusions from it.

Excuse me, sonny, but I marched against the first Gulf War. (I'm not saying I did a lot, that I was some great activist. But I was there.) The Congressional fsck-up that authorized it occurred on my 21st birthday. By the time Clinton came along, my zits were pretty much cleared up.

Then you were chasing Suzy Shalllowthroat around then. Because if you would have been paying attention, it was the accepted norm that Iraq was bad, that they were a danger, that they were attempting to conceal WMDs, that they kicked the UN inspectors out several times, and all that. When it came time to go into Iraq with Bush W, nothing he was saying was out of line with the previous 15 or so years. There wasn't a lot of stuff being said outside maybe the links to 9/11 that was new or unheard of.

And as for 9/11, I'm convinced that if we would have taken care of Iraq years ago, Al Qeada would have stuck with attacking military objectives and 9/11 would never of happened. In the middle east, being strong is important in appearance as a culture and we failed to maintain that appearance when Saddam would kick the UN inspectors out, claimed he won the first gulf war (which he ultimately did), shot missiles at our planes patrolling the demilitarized and no fly zones and everything else. We answered with slaps on the hand when we should have been slapping his face or completely beheading him. This gave Al Qeada the courage to strike in America.

Bullshit. Millions of people demonstrated against W's war before the invasion. I was one of them. (Again, I'm not saying I did a lot. But I was there, and probably got my name on a list somewhere when I organized an anti-war poetry reading and sent recordings of it to Baltimore's congresscritters.)

Lol.. I'm talking about the opposition in the papers. I'm talking about when opposition finally had more facts then accusations and innuendos surrounding it. Look, there will be idiots protesting anything. We had a local chapter of some liberal protester BS in my town. I downloaded some of the UN inspection reports that claimed Iraq was hiding shit and maintaining a chemical network, I showed them UNSUM and UNMOV reports where they cited specific black markets supplying saddam with dual use materials as reported by the IAEA and asked them how they can answer that. Only one person knew of them but admitted he had never read them and then went on with the right verses left crazy ass bullshit that you have already spouted with your Clinton Montra. Now, when I'm looking at papers from international organizations and asking protesters what they think about them and get an answer of "I never seen them but it doesn't matter", it isn't a real opposition on what has been said or done but an "I don't like war opposition". What are the papers supposed to report? Is it that without considering any of the evidence that has been around and trickling in for 15 some odd ye

Re:A fact checker?

[something_wicked_thi]

And how exactly is Abortion Rights less liberal than pro-choice? If anything the former more strongly implies that abortions are a good thing (not the actual procedure but the unfettered access).

Because pro-choice avoids the term abortion altogether. To many people, abortion has a negative connotation. I would have thought that was obvious. Certainly more obvious than the use of "anti" denoting a bias against something.

And "Anti-abortion rights" is actually a pretty common used term when referring to pro-life in articles.

There's a reason I qualified that with "might". It is still quite accurate because currently, abortion is a right Americans have.

Technically they are "anti-2nd ammendment" activist but once again, that doesn't sound good and is also not the way they self describe.

Well, I'm not sure I agree with the anti-2nd amendment idea. The 2nd amendment does not guarantee the right to bear any arms. Just like the right to pursue happiness does not give you unchecked rights to do whatever you want in that pursuit, the right to bear arms does not necessarily give you the right to bear any arms you like.

But that's a technicality. If what you say is true, why do anti-gun control lobbyists describe themselves this way? They could describe themselves as pro-gun rights, pro-2nd amendment, or even something more loaded, like pro-self defense.

I have no problems with the idea that language can be twisted to change the connotation of something and people who don't read between the lines or who aren't being cautious enough can easily fall for this. We all do it from time to time. But this isn't one of those cases. In neither case is the optimal term for the side in question being used. The choice seems to be about as technically accurate as one can expect. If you think anti-abortion hurts the pro-life side, it's just because the they are against the accepted standard of law. The term anti-abortion is perfectly accurate and indicates no bias at all.

Let me try one time to explain clearly why "anti" does not indicate a negative connotation. The word simply negates what comes after. If the word that comes after has a negative connotation, then its anti would likely have a positive connotation. If I say, "anti-murder" or "anti-infanticide", then it certainly sounds positive. Likewise, to many people, abortion has a negative connotation, so, if anything, anti-abortion should have a positive connotation for a lot of people.

Re:A fact checker?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do some groups (e.g. "Gay rights") get to self-identify while other groups (e.g. "Pro life") get re-branded (i.e. "Anti-abortion") by the media?

Wow, a BS sorting machine!

[eagee]

The fact checking is something I wish they would do live during the debate. Maybe a ticker at the bottom.

Still, this is a step in the right direction!

Re:Wow, a BS sorting machine!

[zehaeva]

Even better if the candidates were called on the facts while still talking about them

Re:Wow, a BS sorting machine!

[schwaang]

Well factcheck.org gets their stuff out the next day, which is pretty good since they put together source material and also put the claims in the context of the whole campaign.

Re:Wow, a BS sorting machine!

[TubeSteak]

Well factcheck.org gets their stuff out the next day, which is pretty good since they put together source material and also put the claims in the context of the whole campaign.

I'd like to see the networks run a factcheck hour the day after [debate].

They could play it straight or just put Stewart/Colbert on tv to try and draw in extra viewers with comedy.

Re:Wow, a BS sorting machine!

[geekoid]

Yes, but tossing facts live during a debate would be all awesome!

Viewing tools?

[Hatta]

No thanks, I already viewed those tools last night.

Re:Viewing tools?

[$RANDOMLUSER]

No thanks, I already viewed those tools last night.

Yeah. My folksyometer redlined about ten minutes in.

Re:Viewing tools?

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to use Obama as a tool for my car... Seeing as he is the personification of a stutter-box. I could get more boost off the line!

Re:Viewing tools?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would sure beat using McCain as a tool. The car would forget how many wheels it has.

Re:Viewing tools?

[R2.0]

"I want to use Obama as a tool for my car"

Me too - when my car won't start, I want to grab Obama by the ankles and swing him around to bash the hood of my car repeatedly. It won't make the car start, but I'll feel a lot better about the situation.

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[Anonymous Coward]

I see 13 results

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[Hatta]

Probably, most of her responses were taken straight from John McCain's debate last week. I have to say I'm surprised that so many in the MSM seem to think she did a good job. Even the NPR coverage was favorable towards Palin. I thought she was extraordinarily stiff, and had to work really really hard to fit her scripted answers to Gwen Ifill's questions. She was hanging on for dear life.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck yeah, we need more atheists in office!

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[nategoose]

Try "mavericks" since she grouped herself with McCain.

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[AKAImBatman]

As I recall, she used the phrase "we are the mavericks". And you won't be able to search the text in this tool. It's completely Flash-based.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[Anonymous Coward]

This is sad. I know you're just a random troll, but I cannot help but cry a little inside every time I see something like this. I just can't see how a group that makes up about 85 - 90 % of the population feels like an oppressed minority. I mean I know believing in invisible men that just made everything happen and stupidity (like inability to identify an oppressed minority) go hand in hand, but still, it makes me sad.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[VeNoM0619]

So.. a vote for McCain/Palin is a vote for putting Jesus Christ in office?

Your ideas intrigue me. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[AKAImBatman]

Ah, nm. I just noticed the built-in search box. It claims two results for "mavericks", but only shows one. The text is: "And I've joined this team that is a team of mavericks..."

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[AKAImBatman]

I'm figuring more out with this tool. (Nifty!) The other spot was: "A team of mavericks, of course we're not going to agree on 100 percent of everything."

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[Anonymous Coward]

What is up with this demonization of Atheists in the US? We're just people who have come to the conclusion that a "god" isn't real, just as chrisitians (?) come to the conclusion that santa claus, the easter bunny or the tooth fairy isn't real when they grow up. We are of no threat to christians, except perhaps to stop them from imposing their religion on the world.

The existence of a "god" obviously can't be disproven, but neither can flying pink elephants, or the flying spaghetti monster.

Link to CNN transcript

[langelgjm]

CNN has a searchable, text-based transcript here.

I count six "maverick" instances by Palin.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[Anonymous Coward]

You shouldn't be so hard on atheists. You both share a common disbelief in thousands of deities. They just believe in one less than you do.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[Anonymous Coward]

Oppression by atheists is no joke.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[rk]

Remember, the conjugation/inflection is ATHY, ATHIER, ATHIEST.

"The soup is very athy today!"

"CNN is athier than Fox."

"Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who's the athiest of them all?"

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I heard, I believe she was using the 'Rudy Giuliani' rules of sentence structure: use a verb, a noun, 'maverick' and 'John McCain' together in various combinations.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[Mister Whirly]

Thank you Anonymous Coward. I was on the fence before, but your post has convinced me to finally convert to Atheism! I can't thank you enough sir. Your insightful, non-judgmental, articulate post is a shining beacon into this dismal hell where we all live!

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[try_anything]

I have to say I'm surprised that so many in the MSM seem to think she did a good job.

She set expectations so low. I didn't watch the debate, but my friends who did were really depressed afterwards, because they expected her to humiliate herself again. She delivered a controlled, heavily scripted, marginally competent performance, which is exactly what VP candidates are expected to do.

Come to think of it, controlled, heavily scripted, and marginally competent is exactly what VP candidates are expected to be, so if she keeps this up, she won't hurt McCain at all. Unfortunately.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[Anonymous Coward]

Oppression by religious people, however, is a GIGANTIC BAG OF LAUGHS! wheeeeee!

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[mweather]

Nor is oppression by Christians.

Now if only...

[Anonymous Coward]

the candidates would same something of substance rather than the same old pre-chewed, easy-to-digest sound bites.

I thought there was far too much "Obama said this... McCain said that" going on last night.

Re:Now if only...

[Straif]

But at least with Biden you'll always have the suprise as to what fact he'll make up on the spot next.

Like in many of his, speeches several of these spontaneous facts showed up last night so part of the fun in watching is just trying to figure out what statements he's making are real and what ones are simply pulled out of his hat. Not an easy thing to do since he can be just as forceful and passionate while defending a completly made up fact as a legitimate one.

Voting records, policy stances, even the existance of a diner that he visits all the time are all very flexible facts when he starts talking. His FDR TV address during the Great Depression answer to a Couric question the other day is just a glowing example of a standard Bidenism.

Re:Now if only...

[geekoid]

Can you toss out an actual example instead of a vague one? some cite of an actual quote.
Thanks.

Re:Now if only...

[Straif]

I didn't think that FDR reference was that well hidden in my comment.

âoeWhen the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didnâ(TM)t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed.â

For those historically challenged, the market crashed during Hoovers admin in 1929. Second, TVs weren't commercially available till 1939.

This is not a new thing for Biden, he has a long track record of making up stories and facts when they are needed, even very personal ones. Google his stories about his wifes accident and his campaign against drinking and driving (alcohol played no part in the tragic accident).

It's much the same as Obama's tendency to insert himself into historical moments or create ties to historical characters; Selma, the Kennedy's being the most blatant lies.

And as for the debate itself:
- On the more personal front, the restaurant he mentioned on his many voyages throughout his home town closed 15 years ago.

- On meeting with Ahmedinijad: Barack has repeatedly said he would meet unconditionally with the Iranian President; in one case asked if he still felt that way directly by a reporter and after directly naming the Iranian President in the question. His website still list meetings with no preconditions as a policy.

- On the General's quote about using surge tactics in Afghanistan. The General did in fact say may facets of the Iraqi surge would work there just that it would have to be customized for the region; exactly as Palin said.

- His entire story about kicking Hezbollah out of Lebanon.

- Many of the positions he stated for bills he, Obama and McCain were present for were inaccurate. Often changing McCain's vote to the opposite of what it was.

And that's after I give him stretches like the often repeated 4 billion in Oil industry tax cuts by McCain because it's technically true. The part he leaves out is that McCain is not offering any tax cuts specifically for the oil industry, he is simply proposing to cut the corporate tax rate by 10% across the board.

Re:Now if only...

[Walkingshark]

Its hard to toss an example when its covered in steaming shit because you just pulled it out of your ass. Dude is just another zombie repeating talking points he heard on Rush today.

Re:Now if only...

[sumdumass]

I like that.

Nothing no one else says is true because Rush said it at some point in time. It must be nice knowing that you will get the government that you deserve. And no, I'm not saying that Rush is some bastion of truth or that he is right. I'm saying your attitude is ignorant and a prime example of why people keep doing stupid shit while complaining about the shit being done.

Re:Now if only...

[Walkingshark]

Sorry I couldn't parse your triple negative.

Re:Now if only...

[sumdumass]

I figured as much. I was actually attempting to make as much sense as your discounting something simply because of the source.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. That totally makes it OK for the atheists.

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[mweather]

Yep, she actually used the term "a team of mavericks".

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[damn_registrars]

It claims two results for "mavericks",

Interesting that a search for "maverick" doesn't turn up any of the "mavericks" matches. And the search box says to use anything 3 letters long or longer...

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[Anonymous Coward]

That struck me just the right way... ROFLMAO!

Kudos to you.

In summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Flowchart of Palin's debate tactics

The fact that it's so accurate actually stops me from laughing.

Re:In summary

[Shotgun]

I stopped laughing when I realized that was all it took to beat down Biden. I started crying when I realized that Obama's was almost identical in the substance (replace hockey mom with change, and replace maverick with George Bush).

Re:In summary

[Uberbah]

Wishfull wingnut thinking.

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[clone53421]

And the search box says to use anything 3 letters long or longer...

Well, there's your problem... McCain and Palin are just two characters.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[OverlyGenericUsernam]

Crazy is like a box of chocolates. You never know what your gonna get.

re: NPR

[BitterAndDrunk]

Mara Liasson(sp), NPR's political correspondent, carries water for the Right.

Listen to the way she frames everything when dealing with the 2 campaigns. Her coverage is one of the major reasons I didn't contribute to NPR this year.

fact-checker?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats a fact-checker? Anyway... I'll just go back to reading my copy of "What you need to know about Obama and McCain", by the Democrats. Did you know McCain is an alien from outer space? Sure is cool someone compiled all this useful truth, eh? ;)

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it just paves the way for any sick and fucked up individual to apply the same effective techniques for ridding the world of people they don't like either. Thanks for showing us the way, religion!

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[Kazoo the Clown]

Well, what's correct?

- A "herd" of mavericks? Well, maybe.
- A "gaggle" of maverics? No, that's for geese.
- A "murder" of maverics? No, that's for crows.

I suggest, an "oxymoron" of mavericks...

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[Anonymous Coward]

The text is: "And I've joined this team that is a team of mavericks..."

doesn't the fact that they are a 'team' nullify the fact that the are 'mavericks'?

oxymoron alert!

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[EastCoastSurfer]

I watched some of the debate because I was expecting both of them to humiliate themselves. Biden is great at sticking his foot in his mouth and Palin keeps getting that deer in the headlights look. Once I realized both them were going to manage to stick to the script I flipped the channel.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[Anonymous Coward]

It must be such a dark and scary little box to which your thoughts are confined. I cant help but feel sorry for you, despite your bitterness and barely repressed hostility, since you are the victim of a form of abuse known as brain-washing. Be strong and seek help to overcome it - help is out there. With work, one day you can break out of that box join us in the fresh open air and warm light of reality.

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[slimjim8094]

So I'm not the only one who thought she usually couldn't form a coherent sentence when the discussion veered away from one of her scripts?

Listen, Biden didn't do amazingly (he had trouble connecting his good ideas into a coherent thought) but whenever he stopped talking about his canned sentences, he could form a sentence. In fact, when he elaborated on the script, he did his best...

I can't figure out why the MSM was so nice either. She didn't bomb, which is all they were hoping for, but I like my presidents (and by extension vice-presidents) to be at least mostly literate.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[Jason Levine]

I don't browse at -1 very often, but I happened to catch this post. I hope this isn't indicative of most Slashdot Trolls nowadays. Slashdot has a long, proud history of trolling and it brings a tear to my eye to think that they may have degenerated into this drivel. Come on Trolls, you can do better!

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[slimjim8094]

Yes, but there's a pretty good chance that either of them will die (Obama by some racist asshole, McCain by being a hundred and twelve), so the VP is unusually important here.

I thought Biden actually did better than Obama in the first presidential debate... but I digress.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[dilvish_the_damned]

Scary, isn't it?

Yes, yes you are.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as we're agreeing that it takes sick and fucked up individuals to commit crimes like genocide, why are you painting all "religion" with that generalization? Just because sick and fucked up individuals have identified with a certain religion doesn't necessarily mean the religion is at fault.

Anyway, returning to the GGP's statement:

Nor is oppression by Christians [a joke].

Who the fuck suggested that it was? The OP was making a joke about persecution by atheists. Nobody said anything about persecution by Christians.

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[Anonymous Coward]

a croney of mavericks?

a corruption of mavericks

a milf of mavericks

or maybe consider political stances:
a magazine of mavericks
a Down-child of mavericks
a war of mavericks

okok, I'll stop, now that I'm going to hell.... /hides under asbestos blanket. /checks anonymous box....

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[clone53421]

I dunno... maybe a battle of mavericks?

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[damn_registrars]

McCain and Palin are just two characters

Two? I'd say one and a half, at best. Considering how she pretty well made herself look like a feminine facsimile of what McCain has made himself into, there wasn't enough "character" in her to qualify as a fully unique character.

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[clone53421]

Are you kidding? If anything McCain is the "half-a-character". Even if you don't like her surely you understand that a significant portion of the Republican base was basically stagnant until she came along.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[Anonymous Coward]

Your brain is a textbook case for broken logic and failure to understand context. I sure hope they keep it in a jar after you die.

The context, if you'll rewind your little mind a few minutes, was oppression and athiest.

Both of those words are operative, and valid avenues for discussion.

Atheism itself is only a word that takes definition in the context of religion -- without religion there'd be no concept of athiesm.

So. The complete picture of the context is, in fact, religion and oppression. The OP's original intent can be construed as twofold: a subtle jibe at people who think athiests don't actually oppress people (which would be the connotation), and to point out that it's SRS BSNS (the denotation).

It is perfectly valid and on topic, therefore, to present the other side of the coin: that religious people also oppress (and to take a balanced view you'd have to point out that the cases of oppression committed in the name of religion actually FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR outweigh those committed in the names of other causes).

So, the sane and logical person would add two and two together, and automatically conclude that what really is being said is that the body of belief behind the person committing oppression is, in fact, irrelevant, and that it's the oppression alone which is, in fact, the subject.

Your cognitive failure was the realisation of this last fact and thinking that it was, somehow, a reason to get all uppetty with the person pointing out the flipside of the coin, yet not addressing the person who made the same error (as perceived by you) in their original statement.

The fact that you didn't take that point of view equally with the OP shows that you have fuck all intellectual integrity when it comes to assessing and judging these situations.

You are, therefore, simply a reactionary individual. Try paying more attention next time, mkay?

Which footage?

[HTH NE1]

Which channel's footage does it use?

I watched CBS's coverage in HD and saw the color balance change frequently when showing Biden, revealing the uneven patterning of makeup. It was worst when they did a split-screen presentation of Biden and Palin.

I'll see about getting the section of transcript around the color balance changing back and forth to see if this tool also has affected video.

Re:Which footage?

[geekoid]

Backing my argument that HD may fail becasue it is too good.
Do we really need to see the makeup, hairs, zit's and vein count of people on TV?

Re:Which footage?

[uvajed_ekil]

I watched CBS's coverage in HD and saw the color balance change frequently when showing Biden, revealing the uneven patterning of makeup. It was worst when they did a split-screen presentation of Biden and Palin.

Ah yes, major flaws that completely ruined the vice presidential debate and overshadowed the actual substance and point of the whole charade. Horrible!

Re:Which footage?

[Shotgun]

No, especially when most of the closeups are of overweight football coaches.

I was eating at a sports bar a few nights ago during a football game, which I usually avoid and haven't done in a long time. I wasn't used to HD TVs being everywhere, and it was most disgusting.

Re:Which footage?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually what you saw was biden being an octopus and him shifting his skin colors to reflect his emotional state based on the question asked.

I for one welcome our new color shifting overlord and his dark master, whom collectively I will call "Obiden". Obiden master! I wish you great success in crushing the girl child and the wrinkly old dude!

Gee I dunno...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I dunno. I personally wouldn't mind seeing it be a Murder of Mavericks.

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[mweather]

It's like saying "a society of sociopaths". It's an oxymoron.

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[Anonymous Coward]

She set expectations so low. I didn't watch the debate, but my friends who did were really depressed afterwards, because they expected her to humiliate herself again.

I read this on another website and I felt like it summed up Palin perfectly:

Showing up and failing to set yourself on fire accidentally is only a "win" if you're a four-year-old playing soccer.

Palin's performance should be compared to a generic Republican VP, not to a four year old who set themselves on fire.

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[Bob-taro]

Yes, but there's a pretty good chance that either of them will die (Obama by some racist asshole, McCain by being a hundred and twelve), so the VP is unusually important here.

Out of curiosity I looked up some actuarial tables on the web and calculated McCain's chances of dying in the next 4 years (based on averages - of course, being president would introduce factors that could skew the figure either way - i.e. he might get assassinated, he might succumb to stress, but then again he has bodyguards and probably much better medical care than most of us). Let's put it in positive terms and say that statistically he has a 85.5% chance of surviving 4 more years, and a 68.2% chance of surviving 8.

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[Hatta]

Did those tables take into account the repeated melanomas McCain has had removed?

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a vote for Bush's third term. And that is about it.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the way you totally ignore what I say, then use ad hominem to explain how wrong I am.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[dprovine]

"Put Christ BACK in the Oval Office" ? Doesn't the guy in there now claim to have a direct line to what God wants?

I actually believe that Bush is incredibly ignorant of basic Christian teachings, the most basic of which is "All men are sinners". If Bush really believed in his heart that all men -- including all soldiers, all FBI agents, everybody -- were sinners, he would never approve letting them have power with no oversight. Warrantless wiretaps can only be trusted to people who won't be tempted to abuse them.

Bush may SAY that he believes the Bible, but what he DOES shows that he thinks a man with a badge somehow becomes a non-sinner, and that such a man can be trusted to have power without oversight.

So far, it hasn't been McCain/Palin talking about how Bush's "cops are not sinners and won't sin" policies are unChristian. It's been Democrats complaining about the Administration's unChristian positions (although not using that language).

So, it seems to me, if you want an Administration that actually respects the teaching that all men are sinners, then you want Obama to win.

But somehow, I bet you'll find a way to rationalize away the Administration's unChristian ideas, and come up with some reason to believe that just because they SAY what you want to hear, they'll do what they ought to do.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[Anonymous Coward]

It is because many of them can't understand how someone can be moral/ethical without a religious guideline. If I wished to be Trollish, it implys to me that many of them percive other people as not being able to take responsibility for their actions without the possibility of an authority figure punishing them for violations.

Or, to be even more trollish, they act like children who are only good coz Mean Ole Dad (who really does love them, honestly!) is gonna beat the crap out of them if they're not.

Counteropinion/point?

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[david@ecsd.com]

Mod funny, I think Jack Chick is trolling...

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[Anonymous Coward]

don't forget the KKK, good christians that they think they are.

Troll... Or...?

[Burning1]

The problem with Trolls like this is that you can never tell if they are actually serious...

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[geekoid]

Considering how low the bar of expectations has dropped from her previous media interview, it didn't take much for her to seem passable.

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[geekoid]

Since none of them are mavericks, I suggest "Liars".

they're both liars!

[Anonymous Coward]

if you have an integrity you must dismiss both of these liars. they both lied to the american public with a straight-face just for votes. tell them both to go fist themselves by voting third party. fuck them both, fuck them straight to hell.

Viewing Tool?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would a pre-recorded video of one of their concerts be suffice, or does one have to actually attend?

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[hondo77]

I wasn't aware that Jesus Christ had ever been in the Oval Office. When did that happen, exactly?

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[BigRare]

It's not that "All men are sinners", but that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. In the flesh we are imperfect, but that does not mean that we are continually and purposefully sinning.

-From 2nd Corinthians 5 (New King James Version)

14 For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; 15 and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.
16 Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

I agree with your position on Warrantless wiretaps, they're just plain scary - Unreasonable Search & Seizure. I haven't heard any mainstream presidential candidate _say_ anything against them, which is even worse. Maybe I just don't get the same news out here where we cling to our guns and religion and the rest of our constitutional rights.

Out here, we have more trouble with kids shooting other kids than with police oppression.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[dprovine]

It's not that "All men are sinners", but that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. In the flesh we are imperfect, but that does not mean that we are continually and purposefully sinning.

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." -- 1 John 1:8

The guy who says "I can be trusted with no oversight not to abuse power" is not telling the truth. The guy who says "They can be trusted with no oversight not to abuse power" is not telling the truth.

The concept of "the near occasion of sin" is to describe exactly a case where you are not sinning just to be in that situation, but where you are likely to be tempted from there into a sin. (There's a reason that JRR Tolkien had Gandalf refuse to take the Ring.)

Giving ANYONE permission to carry out wiretaps legally without having to answer for their actions automatically puts those people into a "near occasion of sin". However honorable they may be, they are not sinless. Actively giving them such a strong temptation is unwise, and no Christian who really understands the Bible would ever do it.

Bush and his fellows TALK about the Bible, but they don't actually seem to let it affect what they DO.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[aussie_a]

Clever.

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[Anonymous Coward]

What I found shocking was that she used the word "evil" in the context of foreign policy. Probably Kissinger did not brief her on realpolitc. A world of good and evil, and an "axis of evil", that is stupid rhetorics to make a fool out of yourself in diplomatic circles.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[Anonymous Coward]

Being God, and omnipresent, pretty much every day since the Oval Office entered existence.

Informed: Check Univ. Degree: Check Biased: Check

[rwade]

Reporters for the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, and NPR are among the most well-traveled, dialed-in correspondents in society. They have seen it all.

Reporters from these four organizations are on the ground on Wall Street, Capitol Hill, on main streets across the country. They report from Moscow, Baghdad, London, Paris, Toronto, Riyadh, Mumbai. While there, they have the opportunity to sit around and think about what's going on, why it's happening, who it's happening to, and who's making it happen.

Reporters from these four organizations are usually are well educated with university degrees.

Reporters from these four organizations are criticized for their liberal bias.

Why is it that people are so afraid to take a cue from those that are well educated and informed?

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that the real fraud cannot be debunked. How come that a presidential candidate with a campaign run by lobbyists selects a running mate from an oil state who plays anti-lobby. A candidate who depicted Obama as unexperienced.

Tobacco lobbyists define John McCain's technology policy. And a ruthless lobbyist Rick Davis as his campaign spin master. Davis was paid by Freddie Mac until Aug 08.

Biden is too polite. Are you aware that even the debate was sponsored by Exxon?

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[sumdumass]

Melanoma, the type McCain had, isn't really life threatening in these days. They aren't non-serious but if found and put in check, there is nothing to really effect his life span. In fact, the previous experiences with it probably make him a better candidate to discover new problems and have them taken care of before they are life altering.

But I like the fear in your comments. Show you to be a good soldier.

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[sumdumass]

You need to work on your figurative language skills. That is unless your going off the one sides political speech and can't actually remember back for yourself.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[Shotgun]

You ask why are Atheists are demonized, and then say Atheists are no threat to Christians, just what they believe in.

Dude, if you are going to pick a fight, you can't be befuddled that the ones you pick on will fight back.

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[Shotgun]

You care to do the same analysis on Obama's campaign? Wait! You can't, because he won't release a list of his top advisors. Whenever someone close to the campaign gets called out in a conspiratorially damning relationship of the type you conjure, Obama claims that they weren't advisors.

I guess the easiest way to avoid any sort of controversy is to just not take a stand at all.

Re: NPR

[Shotgun]

So you'll only contribute to NPR if they only hire correspondents that carry water for the Left?

Well, at least we know why you're BitterAndDrunk.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[uvajed_ekil]

So.. a vote for McCain/Palin is a vote for putting Jesus Christ in office?

Wait, the GOP haven't switched the ticket when I was busy eating babies, did they? Jesus Christ in office? Man, and I thought McCain was old. At least then you might not have to worry about Palin taking over, since J.H.C. has already shown incredible resiliency to being murdered. Would that violate the constitution, or would it only be a problem if his dad was on the ticket with him?

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[Wyvern2005]

Ummm..last I knew a maverick was a wild horse-do we want a wild horse in the White House?

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[sumdumass]

From what I can tell, on the internet, and especially around here, the self proclaimed atheists seem to think it necessary to proclaim their lack of faith as loudly as possible and attempt to ridicule religions, especially Christians, every chance they get. It's a rarity to find the religious person starting the arguments I read. That seems to be common around here too.

It's much the truth of your snide attempt to compare god with Flying Pink Elephants and the flying spaghetti monster. Usually people go on to praise science much like a religion in and of itself in which were the two are in conflict, it all boils down to the same things. In the beginning, there was something that was magically there and it somehow got a bunch of energy and there was a big bang creating the shit we know and see today and There was a god, god created the heavens, stars and the universe are the same thing dressed up differently. Abiogenesis is much the same, somehow, something happened at a specific time or times that made everything just perfect in a one and a million chance were life was formed even though we cannot to this day with all our scientific might create life and a all powerful and omnipotent god created life are about the same thing. The nuances of the details are different and all, but that's another story.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[sumdumass]

I actually believe that Bush is incredibly ignorant of basic Christian teachings,

Lol.. Well that should have been obvious a while ago when he was asked what his favorite bible verse was and answered with Austin 3:16.

BTW, you probably know the bible enough to know that there is no book of Austin. That was/is a tag line from the beer drinking WWF/WWE wrestler Steve Austin who obviously adapted it from john 3:16. People gave him a pass on it though.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[sumdumass]

Don't look at people justifying their hate in religion as a reflection of the religion.

Especially don't do this in the case of the KKK. The problems with the KKK and the freed black slaves are far deeper then any religion and you will end up being perpetually lost in misunderstanding if you don't realize that. The KKK never existed until after the slaves were freed and started taking what little jobs were left in the south from the whites because they now needed to find a way to live too. It would also do you good to learn some history surrounding this too so you will see where the democrats in office after the civil war allowed this to happen which created a highly democrat white population and a heavily republican black population until King jr. was arrested and JFK pulled some strings to keep him safe.

Re:Informed: Check Univ. Degree: Check Biased: Che

[Straif]

So according to this logic because I hold 2 degrees, live in my nations capital, and have traveled to London, Paris, Switzerland, Italy and Monte Carlo my opinion can not be questioned for any reason.

Perhaps you are willing to surrender your free will to you perceived betters, but I tend to look more at the empirical evidence and make up my own mind. But to each his or her own.

C-SPAN's Debate Hub

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the same thing:

http://debatehub.c-span.org/

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[damn_registrars]

Ummm..last I knew a maverick was a wild horse-do we want a wild horse in the White House?

Wild horses or not, I'm not interested in seeing those two in the White House.

Rolling Stone has an interesting article about John McCain, the make-believe maverick and how he came to claim that title.

I too watched the debate

[Anonymous Coward]

I watched the Canadian debate, and I still don't know who Americans should vote for.

Not True metastatic melanoma=fatal 100%

[spineboy]

Melanoma is still a bad ass cancer. Yes, if you catch it before it goes too deep 1mm, you can be ok. However, having it four times, is really pushing the odds, because sometimes they are hard to spot.
Once melanoma has become metastatic (spread), is is usually 100% fatal within 6 months untreated, and 1 year if treated with some really, really harsh chemo (interferon, etc).

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just it, Are we forgetting what she will be? She could be the VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! Why did anybody even lower their expectations?

Re:Not True metastatic melanoma=fatal 100%

[sumdumass]

I don't think the 6 months and the 1 year numbers are still accurate. My mother had skin cancer and is in remission but she gets a special X-ray every 3-6 months that looks for it. It hasn't found any more for over 5 years. They are actually talking with her about getting scans even less now.

If you survive the first round with it, you have a better then normal chance of surviving the later rounds if any because it will be caught a lot sooner.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[mikedeanklein]

What should convince you is the bible's promotion of violence, degradation of women (promotion of polygamy) and children and anybody not a "neighbor" (foreigners). The bible/religion has done absolutely nothing to promote love and understanding of the world we live in (i.e. kill all scientists and thinkers...meaning heretics and blasphemers and infidels). Morals existed before the bible (long before) and will continue to exist long after it's demise. The long history of violence in "the name of god" has mostly been whitewashed by those in power...witness the continual censorship and revision of history (let's omit the ugly stuff). It is a tool to keep the masses in line...learn your history and read the bible man.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[MrResistor]

Jesus can't be president, he's not a natural born citizen.
 

Re:Not True metastatic melanoma=fatal 100%

[spineboy]

I was talking about metastatic disease, for which those numbers are accurate. If your Mom had it, then they probably caught it BEFORE it spread. The scans are just surveillance to see IF it is metastasizing, on the possible assumption that maybe they did not get it all.

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[Wyvern2005]

I can certainly agree with that sentiment :) The things those two could do to the White House make wild horse damage look positively pedestrian.

Re:Not True metastatic melanoma=fatal 100%

[sumdumass]

I know what you were talking about. We had discussed something along the lines of 2-4 years left to live with treatment unless somehow they eradicate everything. We talked about using a Gamma Knife and some of the impractical applications of it combined with Chemo and quite a bit of stuff. Of course I got second hand information from my mother who spent a good amount of time finding out exactly what she was dealing with seeing how it was possible to kill her. She comes from a medical background (RN, Physical therapist) too so I don't think she misunderstood a lot but the doctors gave her most of the information. Of course she could have just told us that so we wouldn't imediately flip out if it got worse but somehow I doubt it.

The point I was wanting to make though was that once someone has it, if it didn't kill them, and it is watched after pretty closely, people can and do live long and productive lives. While it is still serious, the chances of them dieing from it after surviving is a lot lower then dieing from other ailments that 70 and 80 year old people have if they keep looking for it. I would say McCain has a greater risk of endangering his life from falling in the shower and breaking a hip then dieing from melanoma considering how he has experienced it and survived 3 times already. This means he is looking and there is a good chance (like history has shown with him) of it being found before it is really life threatening.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong, three less, forgot the trinity polytheism most of them have except the jehovas sect.

Re:Informed: Check Univ. Degree: Check Biased: Che

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as we're talking about extremely smart people and the political notions they generally hold, let's not forget to mention engineers...

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but you think they have three gods?

I suppose you also think the inhabitants of Flatland have at least three gods, since their deity is a circle (as physically observed by them), a sphere (in the terms of 3 dimensions), and quite possibly something else altogether in higher dimensions.