2012 Presidential Campaign - Obama vs. Romney

[Comish]

google the word failure right now. The very first headline is George Bush and the White House.

Ah. There's your proof.

 

Wowza. That's it?

You don't find that puzzling or just a little suspicious? Also, the 4th entry has more on it as well.

[zoogs]

Google 'santorum'. (If we are talking about a Google bias, that is). I think it is largely the online community that finds a way to game the system and do this, and not the Google rankings engine itself. SEO is an art.

[Comish]

This is your GOP base, people. "Don't trust what you read on the Googles. Please return to Conservapedia for the truthiest information out there." (courtesy of Carlfence). Sorry, for some reason my reply kept repeating the .....quote numbers don't match error code and refused the post, so I copied this from an earlier response.

 

This is your LIBERAL base, people. "Only trust what you read on the AP, Reuters, Bloomberg, Google, and the mainstream media because it is unvarnished and pristine. By all means, NEVER trust anything that comes from an alternative source because they must prove they are unbiased whereas the traditional media gets has no such threshold"

Who are you to judge what the traditional media gets has?

I'm nobody special.

Just a guy worried about the direction of the country and simultaneously amazed at how many folks believe the media is truly even-handed in how they report things.

Who are these people? Do you think that I believe that?

I don't know what you believe. I know that when I posit a case for the mainstream media being biased, you argue it. So, the natural reaction would seem to be you think they are not.

[Comish]

Google 'santorum'. (If we are talking about a Google bias, that is). I think it is largely the online community that finds a way to game the system and do this, and not the Google rankings engine itself. SEO is an art.

Well, if I google Obama, the first headline is about helping him win the election. That hardly seems random.

[Whistlebritches]

What it really shows is that you don't understand that google results are gamed. That doesn't necessarily make it liberal or conservative. But you do have a point because a lot of people read the first link and accept whatever it says as fact.

 

Personally I think all the main stream media in America is really really terrible unless you care about Kim K. or Justin Beiber.

[zoogs]

Google 'santorum'. (If we are talking about a Google bias, that is). I think it is largely the online community that finds a way to game the system and do this, and not the Google rankings engine itself. SEO is an art.

Well, if I google Obama, the first headline is about helping him win the election. That hardly seems random.

 

Well, the first result does happen to be barackobama.com. That seems like job well done, ranking algorithms.

 

Incidentally, if you google Mitt Romney, the first result is mittromney.com and it's also about helping him win the election.

[Comish]

What it really shows is that you don't understand that google results are gamed. That doesn't necessarily make it liberal or conservative. But you do have a point because a lot of people read the first link and accept whatever it says as fact.

 

Personally I think all the main stream media in America is really really terrible unless you care about Kim K. or Justin Beiber.

 

I can certainly agree with that.

[carlfense]

This is your GOP base, people. "Don't trust what you read on the Googles. Please return to Conservapedia for the truthiest information out there." (courtesy of Carlfence). Sorry, for some reason my reply kept repeating the .....quote numbers don't match error code and refused the post, so I copied this from an earlier response.

 

This is your LIBERAL base, people. "Only trust what you read on the AP, Reuters, Bloomberg, Google, and the mainstream media because it is unvarnished and pristine. By all means, NEVER trust anything that comes from an alternative source because they must prove they are unbiased whereas the traditional media gets has no such threshold"

Who are you to judge what the traditional media gets has?

I'm nobody special.

Just a guy worried about the direction of the country and simultaneously amazed at how many folks believe the media is truly even-handed in how they report things.

Who are these people? Do you think that I believe that?

I don't know what you believe. I know that when I posit a case for the mainstream media being biased, you argue it. So, the natural reaction would seem to be you think they are not.

Where did you posit a case that the mainstream media was biased? And where did I argue it?

 

Are you saying Google is the mainstream media? If so . . . well . . . there might not be hope.

[Mavric]

Did any piece of legislation during those 14 months need a single GOP vote in favor to become law?

You're the one saying that it did not need a single GOP vote (i.e. "filibuster proof majority") so you should certainly check that out.

Interesting how you press everyone else ad nausium to answer your questions but apparently refuse to answer any asked directly to you.

 

I assert that the answer to the above question is no and have previously explained why. If I am wrong, please enlighten me.

[carlfense]

Did any piece of legislation during those 14 months need a single GOP vote in favor to become law?

You're the one saying that it did not need a single GOP vote (i.e. "filibuster proof majority") so you should certainly check that out.

Interesting how you press everyone else ad nausium to answer your questions but apparently refuse to answer any asked directly to you.

 

I assert that the answer to the above question is no and have previously explained why. If I am wrong, please enlighten me.

Here's one. There might be more. I didn't look further.

 

http://www.rickperry...%80%99s-passage

[Mavric]

Did any piece of legislation during those 14 months need a single GOP vote in favor to become law?

You're the one saying that it did not need a single GOP vote (i.e. "filibuster proof majority") so you should certainly check that out.

Interesting how you press everyone else ad nausium to answer your questions but apparently refuse to answer any asked directly to you.

 

I assert that the answer to the above question is no and have previously explained why. If I am wrong, please enlighten me.

Here's one. There might be more. I didn't look further.

 

http://www.rickperry...%80%99s-passage

That vote was 63 votes in favor of. It needed 3/5 (60) to pass. There were only three Republicans that voted for it. That means even if the three Republicans voted against it, it would have still passed with 60 votes.

 

Thank you for proving my point.

[Mavric]

Incidentally, as I mentioned earlier - and you conveniently ignored - both the vote Invoke Cloture on debate of the Affordable Care Act and the Affordable Care Act itself were passed with exactly 60 votes with no Republicans voting in favor.

[carlfense]

Did any piece of legislation during those 14 months need a single GOP vote in favor to become law?

You're the one saying that it did not need a single GOP vote (i.e. "filibuster proof majority") so you should certainly check that out.

Interesting how you press everyone else ad nausium to answer your questions but apparently refuse to answer any asked directly to you.

 

I assert that the answer to the above question is no and have previously explained why. If I am wrong, please enlighten me.

Here's one. There might be more. I didn't look further.

 

http://www.rickperry...%80%99s-passage

That vote was 63 votes in favor of. It needed 3/5 (60) to pass. There were only three Republicans that voted for it. That means even if the three Republicans voted against it, it would have still passed with 60 votes.

 

Thank you for proving my point.

But which were the deciding votes? The claim was that "it's going to pass anyways so I'll vote for it." Who actually was the deciding vote?

 

That doesn't prove your point unless you can show that all of the Democratic voters voted before the GOP voters . . . and would have voted the same way without the GOP support.

 

I'll let you investigate that since I don't really think that it's my job to prove your own argument. Support it or just assert your beliefs without bothering to do the research. Your call.

[carlfense]

Incidentally, as I mentioned earlier - and you conveniently ignored - both the vote Invoke Cloture on debate of the Affordable Care Act and the Affordable Care Act itself were passed with exactly 60 votes with no Republicans voting in favor.

Which proves what, exactly? I wasn't ignoring it because it damages my argument. I was ignoring it because it doesn't really support your own.

 

You're trying to cloud the waters. (Lay a smoke screen, etc. Choose your own metaphor.) You said Democrats had a filibuster proof majority. Democrats. It's an interesting argument . . . that is factually and mathematically incorrect. The last time that I checked 58 was less than 60. Perhaps something has changed since I last took a math class.

[Mavric]

Incidentally, as I mentioned earlier - and you conveniently ignored - both the vote Invoke Cloture on debate of the Affordable Care Act and the Affordable Care Act itself were passed with exactly 60 votes with no Republicans voting in favor.

Which proves what, exactly? I wasn't ignoring it because it damages my argument. I was ignoring it because it doesn't really support your own.

 

You're trying to cloud the waters. (Lay a smoke screen, etc. Choose your own metaphor.) You said Democrats had a filibuster proof majority. Democrats. It's an interesting argument . . . that is factually and mathematically incorrect. The last time that I checked 58 was less than 60. Perhaps something has changed since I last took a math class.

I never said that all 60 had to be registered Democrats. Perhaps you were reading that into my post. I don't know of any definition of a majority that says every party of the majority has to be exactly the same. A majority consists of a group that acts/thinks/believes/votes in a similar manner. In fact, I've repeatedly said they were not all registered Democrats but that doesn't change the fact that the Democrats (which made up the largest group of the majority) had 60 senators that largely voted along the same lines forming a filibuster-proof majority.