This study shows that MSNBC viewers agree with liberal opinions on issues, not that they are the best informed. Most of the issues in the study involve opinions, not facts.
I can't think of any examples where MSNBC hosts openly shilled, on the air, for political candidates.
How about when Chris Matthews had a thrill go up his leg when he listened to an Obama speech during the 2008 Presidential campaign? That is just one example of something that is quite common on MSNBC. However, there is somethign to what you say, the usual behavior for MSNBC is to throw dirt at the political candidates they oppose rather than to shill for the candidate they favor.
And you are correct that MSNBC is nowhere near equally biased to Fox News. A review of stories during 2010 shows that Fox had a similar ratio of negative to positive stories on both Democrats and Republicans, while MSNBC had a much higher ratio of negative to positive stories on Republicans than on Democrats.
How much more proven than a ruling by the Honduran Supreme Court can an allegation that President Zelaya broke the law can you get? The Supreme Court of Honduras ruled that Zelaya had committed treason by attempting to change the Presidential term limits clause of the Honduran Constitution (of course it wasn't like they had a choice since the Honduran Constitution defines attempting to change that clause as treason).
How does a cable from the U.S. Embassy, represent a "straight from the horse's mouth" interpretation of the Honduran Constitutions?
Exactly what was the U.S. supposed to ask Honduras to do in January of this year when Zelaya's term had expired and the President chosen in the Constitutionally scheduled election took office?
You keep saying the U.S. should have cut off aid to Honduras. OK, for how long? Until Honduras tok what action?
Wow! Amazing, Fox viewers do not have the same opinions about various topics as those who watch networks which favor the expansion of state power.
I do not watch Fox News (or any other television news). However, most of the things that they use as examples of Fox News viewers being stupid are opinions, not facts. The very first one they list is the large number of Fox News viewers who think that the stimulus legislation lost jobs. Well, the U.S. economy has lost quite a few jobs since the stimulus legislation was passed, so it is perfectly legitimate to blame the stimulus legislation. However, that is an opinion. There are people who believe that the U.S. economy would have lost more jobs if the stimulus was not enacted. That is also an opinion.
Basically, the site in question calls their opinions "facts" and then belittles those who disagree with those "facts".
"The facts of life are conservative." Margaret Thatcher
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." Stephen Colbert
Let's see, who should I give greater credit to: a woman who showed that she understood how the world works by teaming up with other world leaders to cause the collapse of the Soviet Union or a man who makes his living as a comedian? And, oh yeah, the comedian made his statement some 2 decades after she made hers.
So, the U.S. Embassy is the final arbiter of what is constitutional according to the Constitution of Honduras?
Fact: President Zelaya attempted to amend the Constitution of Honduras to allow him to serve a further term as President of Honduras (this is the "meaningful reform project in Honduras" that is referred to in the article you quote). That is defined by the Honduran Constitution as treason.
Fact: The Honduran Supreme Court ordered him to stop attempting to amend the Honduran Constitution to allow him to serve another term as President.
Fact: President Zelaya made plans to conduct a plebiscite on amending the Constitution to allow himself to serve another term as President using the Army. When the Amry's top general refused to carry out his illegal order, Zelaya attempted to fire him.
Fact: The Supreme Court ordered the Army to remove Zelaya from power.
Fact: After removing Zelaya from power the Army turned power over to the next civilian in the line of succession.
The only problem is that the Honduran Constitution does not say what course of action should be taken if the President commits treason, so the government of Honduras had to improvise a solution.
The Obama Administration only started to recognize that it would have to accept the results of the election (which had been scheduled well before all of this occurred...including selection of candidates) after the American people expressed outrage that he would support someone who clearly attempted to subvert his own country's constitution (Zelaya).
Fact: Micheletti yielded power peacefully to the winner of the constitutionally held election. If President Sosa does not yield office to his duly elected successor at the end of his single term, you may have a case that a coup has taken place. Otherwise, an honest arbiter of the facts must conclude that Honduran Democracy was preserved by what you call a coup.
OK, all you did was find a cable from the U.S. Embassy in Honduras that reflects the position taken by the Obama Administration at the time that the Legislature and Supreme Court of Honduras got the Honduran Army to remove the President of Honduras (who just about everybody agrees was committing a crime defined by the Honduran Constitution at the time). It does not show that the Obama Administration lied or that it supported the "coup" government, since the Obama Administration opposed the coup government, even to the point of suggesting that they would not recognize the results of the previously scheduled election.
I feel the same way. Unfortunately, as someone else already posted, apparently the Court does not reveal that in this type of case. I would really like to know two things. One, did this case fall along the standard "conservative"/"liberal" divide on this court or did the Justices divide up differently this time? Two, if it did divide along the normal divide for this court, which side voted for the Ninth Circuit decision and which voted to overturn? I can imagine arguments in this case that would appeal to either side. I would expect, based on the way they have ruled on cases that are from my perspective similar, that it would be the "conservatives" that voted to overturn, but there have been a few cases where the "conservative"/"liberal" divide on this Court voted the opposite of what I expected because they viewed the issue in the case as being a completely different one than I did.
Or it could be considered, editing to make it seem like someone said something they didn't. As for whether or not Moore was trying to make it seem as if Heston was that insensitive, if he wasn't he is even more over-rated than I think he is because that was what people took from the movie when it first came out (until people who did not agree with Moore's politics started pointing out that it was two different speeches and people who agreed with Moore started to go, "Oh, I didn't notice.").
If you want examples of Moore being dishonest, there are several websites that fact check "Bowling for Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 9/11". I have yet to see either of those fact checks (which both find those movies to be almost truth free) debunked.
Here is an example (it is one of many). In Bowling for Columbine, Moore presented "a" speech by Charlton Heston. In the middle of the speech the camera goes from showing Charlton Heston speaking (although you continue to hear him speak) to showing a crowd and signs, then it goes back to showing Charlton Heston. In the meantime Charlton Heston has changed shirts. It turns out that Moore spliced together footage of Charlton Heston at two different speeches to completely different groups so as to make them seem to be one coherent whole and to take some of his comments out of context and make them look like terrible comments about Columbine. When I first heard about the "speech", I thought "Oh, how could he say something like that." Then I heard the context for the parts of each speech, and thought, "OH, he didn't say anything like that. Those two peices don't actually go together."
Up until now, I have been ambivalent about Assange. He has said some things that indicate he views himself as being at war with the U.S. with the goal of destroying the U.S. government (not causing it to be reformed, but actually destroying it). On the other hand, he has released documents that indicate that Iraq did indeed have WMDs at the time of the invasion and that Iraq had a plan to work on obtaining nuclear weapons.
Now with Michael Moore strongly in his corner declaring him a "journalist" (or is that "journolist") it is clear that he is a completely unreliable source and I have to question the reliability of the documents he has released.
There is no evidence connecting it to radio transmission of any kind (ok there was that study where they put cellphones inside a hive and observed a negative impact, but how beehives have some kind of radio transmitter actually inside them?).
The best explanation I have seen has to do with a fungus and a parasite invading hives at the same time.
That is exactly what I was thinking. If for some reason I went to Gawker and registered an account, I would use a really easy, simple password because I don't care if someone hacks my account there. I'm not going to put any information in that account that you could use to hack my important accounts.
No, this particular study reflects something about human nature. Basically this study says that if there are a lot of minor terrorist attacks (even unsuccessful ones), there will be an increase in the number of major terrorist attacks. The logic works something like this: On average, if 50 people plan separate terrorist attacks, one of them will plan something major. If 100, then two will plan something major. This is not exact, so at low levels the correlation between number of minor attacks and number of major attacks will be low, but as the number of minor attacks increases, the number of major attacks will increase until this average is reached. Of course there is another effect that comes into play as well, as the number of total attacks increases, the willingness of people to put more effort into planning and execution goes up, so the risk of a major attack goes up as well.
This study does not so much suggest a strategy for combating terrorism as it suggests a way to evaluate the risk of a significant attack at any given time. If there are a lot of minor attacks being made, prepare for a major one. If there are very few minor attacks being made, then you can relax your guard against a major attack some.
Well, then what about Germany, France, Italy and Slovenia that have banned this pesticide. If countires that have banned/never allowed this pesticide are showing the same bee death patterns as those that have allowed it, this pesticide is obviously not the cause.
We're already paying for everything, just in the least efficient and least fair way possible.
That is not true, Congress has repeatedly tried to change it to a less efficient and less fair way and actually succeeded with Obamacare (although not to the degree that many wished for).
Of course the reason that we have the current inefficiencies and unfairness are also the product of government mandates in medical care.
The problem with Preventative care is that studies shows that it actually drives up costs overall. If it early tests and taking preventive action costs 1% of the cost of treatment for some cancer for the individual, yet only 0.5% of the population gets this particular cancer, preventive care costs twice as much as treating the disease for the population as a whole. Preventive care is cost effective for the individual, but not for society as a whole.
The problem is that in neither Country A nor Country B is what you are talking about actually insurance. What you are talking about is a program whereby when you need medical care, someone else pays the cost. That someone else is everybody else, so basically, you are reccommending a program whereby all medical costs are shared out among the whole population. Of course this is the source of most of the problems with healthcare in the U.S., the end user has no incentive to control costs because either A: someone else is paying for it by pre-arrangement or B: someone else will end up paying for it because the user doesn't have the means to pay for it.
So, you have a right to healthcare, that's great. I guess in you country the government drafts people to become doctors and nurses and those people are required to treat everyone who comes through the door. And other people are drafted to become medical researchers and whatever good things they discovered are made available to everyone at no cost. Of course these people have to do something else, as well, in order to feed and clothe themselves, since healthcare is a right.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean the bigoted right wing commentator who was fired from NPR because he hates Muslims?
Wow, just Wow. If you think that Juan Williams is a right wing commentator there is really no point in even discussing the real world with you.
Right, that's why Juan Williams still works at NPR, because NPR is such an open and fair news source. /s
This study shows that MSNBC viewers agree with liberal opinions on issues, not that they are the best informed. Most of the issues in the study involve opinions, not facts.
There are no liberals at all on Fox News.
Juan Williams ring a bell?
I can't think of any examples where MSNBC hosts openly shilled, on the air, for political candidates.
How about when Chris Matthews had a thrill go up his leg when he listened to an Obama speech during the 2008 Presidential campaign? That is just one example of something that is quite common on MSNBC. However, there is somethign to what you say, the usual behavior for MSNBC is to throw dirt at the political candidates they oppose rather than to shill for the candidate they favor.
And you are correct that MSNBC is nowhere near equally biased to Fox News. A review of stories during 2010 shows that Fox had a similar ratio of negative to positive stories on both Democrats and Republicans, while MSNBC had a much higher ratio of negative to positive stories on Republicans than on Democrats.
How much more proven than a ruling by the Honduran Supreme Court can an allegation that President Zelaya broke the law can you get? The Supreme Court of Honduras ruled that Zelaya had committed treason by attempting to change the Presidential term limits clause of the Honduran Constitution (of course it wasn't like they had a choice since the Honduran Constitution defines attempting to change that clause as treason).
How does a cable from the U.S. Embassy, represent a "straight from the horse's mouth" interpretation of the Honduran Constitutions?
Exactly what was the U.S. supposed to ask Honduras to do in January of this year when Zelaya's term had expired and the President chosen in the Constitutionally scheduled election took office?
You keep saying the U.S. should have cut off aid to Honduras. OK, for how long? Until Honduras tok what action?
Wow! Amazing, Fox viewers do not have the same opinions about various topics as those who watch networks which favor the expansion of state power.
I do not watch Fox News (or any other television news). However, most of the things that they use as examples of Fox News viewers being stupid are opinions, not facts. The very first one they list is the large number of Fox News viewers who think that the stimulus legislation lost jobs. Well, the U.S. economy has lost quite a few jobs since the stimulus legislation was passed, so it is perfectly legitimate to blame the stimulus legislation. However, that is an opinion. There are people who believe that the U.S. economy would have lost more jobs if the stimulus was not enacted. That is also an opinion.
Basically, the site in question calls their opinions "facts" and then belittles those who disagree with those "facts".
"The facts of life are conservative." Margaret Thatcher
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." Stephen Colbert
Let's see, who should I give greater credit to: a woman who showed that she understood how the world works by teaming up with other world leaders to cause the collapse of the Soviet Union or a man who makes his living as a comedian? And, oh yeah, the comedian made his statement some 2 decades after she made hers.
So, the U.S. Embassy is the final arbiter of what is constitutional according to the Constitution of Honduras?
Fact: President Zelaya attempted to amend the Constitution of Honduras to allow him to serve a further term as President of Honduras (this is the "meaningful reform project in Honduras" that is referred to in the article you quote). That is defined by the Honduran Constitution as treason.
Fact: The Honduran Supreme Court ordered him to stop attempting to amend the Honduran Constitution to allow him to serve another term as President.
Fact: President Zelaya made plans to conduct a plebiscite on amending the Constitution to allow himself to serve another term as President using the Army. When the Amry's top general refused to carry out his illegal order, Zelaya attempted to fire him. Fact: The Supreme Court ordered the Army to remove Zelaya from power.
Fact: After removing Zelaya from power the Army turned power over to the next civilian in the line of succession.
The only problem is that the Honduran Constitution does not say what course of action should be taken if the President commits treason, so the government of Honduras had to improvise a solution.
The Obama Administration only started to recognize that it would have to accept the results of the election (which had been scheduled well before all of this occurred...including selection of candidates) after the American people expressed outrage that he would support someone who clearly attempted to subvert his own country's constitution (Zelaya).
Fact: Micheletti yielded power peacefully to the winner of the constitutionally held election. If President Sosa does not yield office to his duly elected successor at the end of his single term, you may have a case that a coup has taken place. Otherwise, an honest arbiter of the facts must conclude that Honduran Democracy was preserved by what you call a coup.
OK, all you did was find a cable from the U.S. Embassy in Honduras that reflects the position taken by the Obama Administration at the time that the Legislature and Supreme Court of Honduras got the Honduran Army to remove the President of Honduras (who just about everybody agrees was committing a crime defined by the Honduran Constitution at the time). It does not show that the Obama Administration lied or that it supported the "coup" government, since the Obama Administration opposed the coup government, even to the point of suggesting that they would not recognize the results of the previously scheduled election.
I feel the same way. Unfortunately, as someone else already posted, apparently the Court does not reveal that in this type of case. I would really like to know two things. One, did this case fall along the standard "conservative"/"liberal" divide on this court or did the Justices divide up differently this time? Two, if it did divide along the normal divide for this court, which side voted for the Ninth Circuit decision and which voted to overturn? I can imagine arguments in this case that would appeal to either side. I would expect, based on the way they have ruled on cases that are from my perspective similar, that it would be the "conservatives" that voted to overturn, but there have been a few cases where the "conservative"/"liberal" divide on this Court voted the opposite of what I expected because they viewed the issue in the case as being a completely different one than I did.
Or it could be considered, editing to make it seem like someone said something they didn't. As for whether or not Moore was trying to make it seem as if Heston was that insensitive, if he wasn't he is even more over-rated than I think he is because that was what people took from the movie when it first came out (until people who did not agree with Moore's politics started pointing out that it was two different speeches and people who agreed with Moore started to go, "Oh, I didn't notice.").
If you want examples of Moore being dishonest, there are several websites that fact check "Bowling for Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 9/11". I have yet to see either of those fact checks (which both find those movies to be almost truth free) debunked.
Here is an example (it is one of many). In Bowling for Columbine, Moore presented "a" speech by Charlton Heston. In the middle of the speech the camera goes from showing Charlton Heston speaking (although you continue to hear him speak) to showing a crowd and signs, then it goes back to showing Charlton Heston. In the meantime Charlton Heston has changed shirts. It turns out that Moore spliced together footage of Charlton Heston at two different speeches to completely different groups so as to make them seem to be one coherent whole and to take some of his comments out of context and make them look like terrible comments about Columbine. When I first heard about the "speech", I thought "Oh, how could he say something like that." Then I heard the context for the parts of each speech, and thought, "OH, he didn't say anything like that. Those two peices don't actually go together."
Up until now, I have been ambivalent about Assange. He has said some things that indicate he views himself as being at war with the U.S. with the goal of destroying the U.S. government (not causing it to be reformed, but actually destroying it). On the other hand, he has released documents that indicate that Iraq did indeed have WMDs at the time of the invasion and that Iraq had a plan to work on obtaining nuclear weapons.
Now with Michael Moore strongly in his corner declaring him a "journalist" (or is that "journolist") it is clear that he is a completely unreliable source and I have to question the reliability of the documents he has released.
There is no evidence connecting it to radio transmission of any kind (ok there was that study where they put cellphones inside a hive and observed a negative impact, but how beehives have some kind of radio transmitter actually inside them?).
The best explanation I have seen has to do with a fungus and a parasite invading hives at the same time.
That is exactly what I was thinking. If for some reason I went to Gawker and registered an account, I would use a really easy, simple password because I don't care if someone hacks my account there. I'm not going to put any information in that account that you could use to hack my important accounts.
No, this particular study reflects something about human nature. Basically this study says that if there are a lot of minor terrorist attacks (even unsuccessful ones), there will be an increase in the number of major terrorist attacks. The logic works something like this: On average, if 50 people plan separate terrorist attacks, one of them will plan something major. If 100, then two will plan something major. This is not exact, so at low levels the correlation between number of minor attacks and number of major attacks will be low, but as the number of minor attacks increases, the number of major attacks will increase until this average is reached. Of course there is another effect that comes into play as well, as the number of total attacks increases, the willingness of people to put more effort into planning and execution goes up, so the risk of a major attack goes up as well.
This study does not so much suggest a strategy for combating terrorism as it suggests a way to evaluate the risk of a significant attack at any given time. If there are a lot of minor attacks being made, prepare for a major one. If there are very few minor attacks being made, then you can relax your guard against a major attack some.
You are wrong. In the U.S. (and several other countries) there are standards established by law defining what is, or is not, organic food.
Well, then what about Germany, France, Italy and Slovenia that have banned this pesticide. If countires that have banned/never allowed this pesticide are showing the same bee death patterns as those that have allowed it, this pesticide is obviously not the cause.
We're already paying for everything, just in the least efficient and least fair way possible.
That is not true, Congress has repeatedly tried to change it to a less efficient and less fair way and actually succeeded with Obamacare (although not to the degree that many wished for).
Of course the reason that we have the current inefficiencies and unfairness are also the product of government mandates in medical care.
Yes, but the attorneys arguing the government's case represent one of those who was (the President) arguing that it wasn't a tax.
The problem with Preventative care is that studies shows that it actually drives up costs overall. If it early tests and taking preventive action costs 1% of the cost of treatment for some cancer for the individual, yet only 0.5% of the population gets this particular cancer, preventive care costs twice as much as treating the disease for the population as a whole. Preventive care is cost effective for the individual, but not for society as a whole.
The problem is that in neither Country A nor Country B is what you are talking about actually insurance. What you are talking about is a program whereby when you need medical care, someone else pays the cost. That someone else is everybody else, so basically, you are reccommending a program whereby all medical costs are shared out among the whole population. Of course this is the source of most of the problems with healthcare in the U.S., the end user has no incentive to control costs because either A: someone else is paying for it by pre-arrangement or B: someone else will end up paying for it because the user doesn't have the means to pay for it.
So, you have a right to healthcare, that's great. I guess in you country the government drafts people to become doctors and nurses and those people are required to treat everyone who comes through the door. And other people are drafted to become medical researchers and whatever good things they discovered are made available to everyone at no cost. Of course these people have to do something else, as well, in order to feed and clothe themselves, since healthcare is a right.
When Congress was debating this bill, its proponents were very emphatic that this provision was not a tax. Now, you want to argue that it is a tax?