McCain v Obama

[ryguy]

To add a little balance to this thread:

Why I Can't Vote for McCain

Excerpts from professionals around the internet:

From a Nurse: "Here is another reason why NOT to vote for McCain. In a recent campaing ad, he was cited that the fundamental problem with Healthcare is "cost." I am sorry, but if you know the true problems we face in Healthcare, cost is just a small issue. I am sorry but he missed the target again...the true problem is "QUALITY!"

An Amazing Republican excerpt from Mona Charen at RealClearPolitics

"McCain reaches too hard and too transparently to turn everything into a contest about military service. When Romney observed that Bob Dole wouldn't necessarily be the one he'd want an endorsement from, McCain pronounced himself "very sad and disappointed to see that kind of comment about a person who was an American war hero" and demanded that Romney apologize!

There is a strutting self-righteousness about McCain that goes hand in hand with a nitroglycerin temper. He flatters himself that his colleagues in the Senate dislike him because he stands up for principle whereas they sell their souls for pork. Not exactly. He is disliked because on many, many occasions, he has been disrespectful, belligerent and vulgar to those who differ with him.

Bradley Smith, former commissioner of the Federal Election Commission and the leading legal scholar on campaign finance issues, experienced the McCain treatment firsthand. Because Smith opposed limits on political speech, he was denounced as "corrupt" by the senator (as was Commissioner Ellen Weintraub). Smith, who lives modestly, jokes that his wife has complained about the absence of jewels and furs.

Though he served on the commission for five years and made several attempts to meet with McCain to discuss the issues, Smith was rebuffed. The two did accidentally meet outside a hearing room in 2004 when they were both scheduled to testify before the Senate rules committee. At first, McCain grasped Smith's outstretched hand (Smith was in a wheelchair, recovering from surgery), but when he recognized his campaign finance opponent, he snatched his hand back, snarling, "I'm not going to shake your hand. You're a bully. You have no regard for the Constitution. You're corrupt."

Smith, a soft-spoken scholar, ardent patriot and lifelong conservative Republican, cannot, as a matter of honor, pull the lever for McCain. He is far from alone, and that is the Republican Party's heartbreak in 2008."

From Vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com

"U.S. documents proving POW McCain seriously "collaborated" was obtained in 1991 by the US Veteran Dispatch through the Freedom of Information Act - these transcripts are 5 of the approximately 20 interviews McCain gave the communist. "

Why You Shouldn't Vote for McCain

"And on reproductive rights, McCain has received a 0 percent rating from NARAL (2002 to 2007). According to the site: In addition to his solidly anti-choice record, Sen. McCain has never cosponsored or supported legislation that would prevent unintended pregnancy or reduce the need for abortion."

"McCain skipped the vote on the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which “restores the longstanding interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,” adding that instead of legislation allowing women to fight for equal pay, they simply need “education and training.“ [Source and Source ]"

"And on Think Progress, we are told the story of McCain’s alleged 1986 rape joke:
---Did you hear the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly and left to die? When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, “Where is that marvelous ape?”----

Also from the post on Think Progress:

"Earlier this year, the non-partisan Tax Policy Center found that McCain’s economic plan “would primarily benefit those with very high incomes.” In fact, under McCain’s plan, John and Cindy McCain would get a $300,000 tax break while middle class Americans would save only $319. The McCains save $60,016 more under McCain’s tax plan than under Bush’s."

"The McCain camp is also a little confused on taxes, with senior campaign adviser Steve Schmidt saying it was OK for Palin to have raised taxes while she was in office, while simulaneously lying about Obama’s tax proposal:

She raised sales taxes because that was the right thing to do for that town at that time. It shows that she doesn’t adhere to a dogmatic principle. We have to have taxes in this country. Here’s the difference. Sen. Obama wants to raise everybody’s federal taxes. Gov. Palin and Sen. McCain are going to cut them."

For the facts click here for a Washington Post graphic comparing the two tax proposals.

"McCain very recently called Iraq a “peaceful and stable country.” Which was, in fact, McCain’s definition of ‘victory’ in Iraq. Think Progress listed some examples of ‘peace and quiet’:
- August 9: A suicide car bomb in Tal Afar killed at least 25 people.
- August 24: A suicide bomber killed 25 people, including women and children, in Baghdad’s Abu Ghraib district.
- August 27: A suicide bomber killed 28 and wounded 45 in Iraq’s Diyala province.


And most impressively, Dr. Phillip Butler, a former POW, writes about why he won't be voting for McCain. Download the video. Most interesting are the comments:

"Vets_Unite commented 1 day ago:
I would pick the person who not only understands National Security, but who actually listens to the commanders on the ground. Mr. Obama listens. McCain can't even hear."

"Vets_Unite commented 7 days ago:
Nothing speaks more of a man's character than his own words and those of his peers. This article has shown the criminalistic, unpatriotic sides of McCain and the evidence is irrefutable. Now fast forward 40 years to 7 Oct 08. In McCain's own words, he has referred to another U.S. Senator as "that one", without even looking Mr. Obama in the eye. McCain is a racist and a coward. If he were still in the military, he would be up against yet another set of UCMJ charges for EO violations. "

"Vets_Unite commented 8 days ago:
Need to know more about the "Keating 5" and John McCain's criminal involvement in the Savings and Loan scandal? Go here: http://www.keatingeconomics.com"

"Vets_Unite commented 8 days ago:
McCain denounced the US government to better his time in captivity and to save his own life. That action is treason, punishable by death under UCMJ. Next, McCain accepted over $100,000 from Keating to cover up his role in the S&L Scandal. McCain was reprimanded by the Senate for Ethics violations. This is guilty by deed. In other words, he is the guilty man. John McCain was and IS the criminal here. It's fact that can be documented by anyone. Stop trying to change the subject. You will not win."

"Old Jarhead commented 9 days ago:
We are now in the season of greasy Republican attempts at character assassination. We will hear a parroting of "Ayers" and "Wright," but we will not hear proposed solutions to eight years of having our military and economy dismantled by the Bush/Cheney crew. McCain has his own shady past, but so far the Democrats have not emphasized that."

"Vets_Unite commented 17 days ago:
I am active duty in the military and yes, this does give a right to speak in a manner that others cannot. I cannot, by law, reveal my name or rank but I can and will speak my mind on the subject of McCain's ability to lead the military "because he was a POW". Here's the deal: Shooting down enemy planes makes you a hero. Being shot down by enemy planes makes does not. If being captured by the enemy makes you qualified for the Presidency, then McCain should have selected Jessica Lynch to be his VP running mate."


Dr Butler's video was even hosted on Military.com - but it's been removed.

[You Can Call Me Ray]

Ray - I suppose my mistake here is in attempting to defend Obama from the numerous points you've been making against him out of one side of your mouth, while out of the other side of your mouth you admit they are both dirty pols. Which of course is clever because by forcing someone to counter the one-sided bashing, gives you more ammunition to continue bashing one side in a disproportionate way.

I have admitted more than once that my reason is because McCain (and esp. Palin) gets plenty of bashing in the media, but Barack is Mr. Teflon. AD brought up Rev. Wright, but that lasted a whole, what, 1 week? I am attempting to level the playing field and get people to understand that in NO WAY is this about the personalities propped-up before us (although the DEM tactic has been to turn Obama into the next Jack Kennedy). It is about the Parties behind them.

So, let me at least say this - you are absolutely correct that they are both dirty pols. Unfortuantely, these are the two shmucks we've got to choose from, and I've read too much about our nation's bloody history and what it took for us to have the vote to simply not vote. I can't do that, it goes against everything I believe in.

And in total keeping with my point about the Parties, I have never even once suggested people NOT VOTE.

So, stuck with a choice between these two, we're forced to choose the one who stinks less. I've read all of the charges against Obama (including all of the ones that you've repeated here over and over), as well as the many charges against McCain. For me it just comes down to the fact that one stinks far less than the other - McCain's joined-at-the-hip-with-Bush voting pattern alone is enough to win my vote for Obama.

See? Now you are sounding exactly like I did when I started posting in this thread! I came to the conclusion that this is exactly what BOTH Parties want. All of the things I have posted here are an attempt to get people to see that, in reality, Obama is NO BETTER. He is every bit a hypocrite as any other pol. And the media gives him a pass when he says "well, I condemn Rev. Wright...let's move on." Meanwhile, we still talk about Dan Quayle's spelling problems. And now watch what happens with ACORN. Despite the fact that he FUNDED them, and was intimately tied to them, he will simply wave his hand, distance himself and the media will obey. Didn't you ever think that the REASON you come to the conclusion he is the "lesser of two evils" might be because no one is REALLY digging aqnd continuing to show he faults/hypocrises/lies? Because I see PLENTY of "bad" out there on him. And speaking of McCain's voting record, I wonder why you don't hear more about Obama's voting record? His voting record is further left than Hillary's (by far). Read this artcile from National Journal:

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

Note Obama's rankings progression: From 16th most liberal, to 10th, to now the #1 spot. As such, I am suggesting to you that your belief that Obama is a centrist is a carefully crafted political myth... by the DEM machine, of course!

Or look at his 41 acts of hypocrisy:

http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/ar ... ts-of.html

But again, given a choice between the two, Obama is clearly the less stinky of two smelly politicians.

And again, your thought processes falls exactly into what the Republicrats want. They want you to believe you can only choose from those two. What would happen to those Parties, Ryan, if suddenly the vast majority of Americans awoke from their slumber and finally realized that it is THESE PARTIES that have SHARED in making America what it is today? And then, what if a movement was started where the vast majority of Americans who really are centrists, finally said "ENOUGH! WE DON'T WANT EITHER OF YOU RUNNING THE WHITE HOUSE! Fight it out in Congress all you want, but we want a decidedly NON-Republicrat in the White House. Someone who really can be centrist because they have no loyalty to a Party Machine."

The longer we buy into the belief we can only choose between Repub and Dem, the longer our recovery will take.
Ray

[Access Denied]

Ray, I find it hard to believe that somebody with your analytical skills can’t see this ACORN thing (for example) is yet another non-issue in the larger scheme of things as far as Obama’s character (as opposed to his policies) is concerned. What evidence do you have that:

a) Obama endorses the practice of ACORN employees submitting fraudulent voter registration cards to ACORN? (presumably to meet quotas and get paid)

b) Fraudulent voter registrations cards submitted to ACORN will translate into fraudulent votes for Obama on November 4th? (presumably because election officials won’t catch them if ACORN doesn’t and somebody will try to vote using them)

The answer is none… and until there is nobody is guilty of “voter fraud” yet (implied election fraud) and it seems reasonable for those who are still inclined to give Obama the benefit of the doubt to assume the only reason he would have anything to do with ACORN is simply because he (perhaps naively) believed it’s stated goals are a good thing.

Now (as Steve pointed out) that’s not to say there’s no reason for anybody to be concerned that some ACORN employees have been found guilty of attempted voter REGISTRATION fraud… which by the way is old news… it’s just that it’s actual significance to the election remains dubious at this point.

Is ACORN (effectively) a left wing front? No doubt… but so what if they get a disproportionate number of people (both real and in some cases non-existent) to register to vote Democrat? Who’s going to hold a gun to their head to get them to go to the polls come election day?

Clearly the McCain camp is flinging this out there hoping it will stick… as it would appear you are… unless of course you’re suffering from confirmation bias and can’t help believing everything that’s being suggested as a “problem” for Obama supporters (or those disillusioned with the Republican party) by certain right wing media sources actually is.

In either case is your repeated badgering of Ryan really necessary? In my opinion you’ve yet to provide any evidence he’s blindly endorsing Obama. Yes, Obama is *gasp* a liberal Democrat and yes, he and his campaign have fumbled the ball on a number of issues… I don’t see where Ryan is necessarily disputing that. Also, bringing Ryan’s religious beliefs into the discussion is uncalled for in my opinion.

I say this not as a mod but as somebody who would rather see you two engaged in a more rational debate…

Now the question is (given for better or worse there’s only two viable choices) who do YOU trust to move our Nation forward? There is no right or wrong answer for everyone and that's something only YOU can (and should) decide for YOURSELF… as our Founding Fathers intended it.

Me? I’m looking forward to the final debate tonight…

[ryguy]

I guess we agree then - but our tactics are different. You would like to show people why Obama isn't any better by laying out the current running charges against the guy. I would like to show people why McCain is far worse by laying out the current running charges against him. Truth of that matter is - regardless of what could be dug up on Obama, most of those charges are of things that have been blown out of proportion by the far right.

Take the Acorn news for example. If you dig into the story you quickly learn that Acorn actually has a whole Army of people conducting registration drives - and that they've always tried to screen what they receive back from their workers and remove the ones with mistakes or errors (in fact they turn them in as incorrect). In this particular case, some workers illegally obtained a whole bunch of names and turned them in. Reading through the accounts, a person who takes the time to research the story also learns that Acorn, in particular, has been battling it out politically with right-wing Republican groups for ages - so Acorn has always been a very large target on the Right's radar. Add in the fact that Obama has a couple of links to the group - and they suddenly become a massive target.

Have you considered how easy it would be to sign up to work with Acorn on their voter registration drive? Anyone at all can do it.

With that said, by the way, all of the charges I've listed in my post above are also charges blown out of proportion by the left-wing Liberals. And I'll bet if someone took the time to make a tally of charges against each candidate, such as Obama's links and McCain's ethics violations, they may even come out pretty darn close.

So what's the clincher? Well, ties to the Bush administration are a clincher for me, but not for you, for obvious reasons (one only needs to read the debate you and I had about the Bush administration). McCain's extremely close voting pattern and cozying up to the Bush adminstration, as well as his walking in-step with Bush's Iraq policies and numurous other failed Bush policies that have hurt this country internationally, financially, and militarily - all of those things make it clear that voting for McCain would be voting for an additional 4-8 years of current failed policies.

So when one talks about voting for Obama for "change" - it isn't because people think Obama is this "beacon of light" who's going to change the world. It's a vote to get as far away from the failed policies and actions of the current administration.

If we could at least agree that Obama and McCain likely have an equal amount of mud that could be dug up about each of them - then all things considered, the one remaining issue that puts Obama on top is the fact that people in this country are thirsty for a change from what we've had to suffer through over the last 8 years.

Make sense?

-Ry

[torbjon]

Ry:

hmmm... NOT attacking you (or anyone), 'kay?

so, early on in this thread I tried to demonstrate / illustrate the past century of American politics and public mind control... I also listed the national debt for the past century somewhere in this thread... I also feel that I provided sufficient information to illustrate that it doesn't really matter who you vote for or who wins, the "change" is superficial (ie debt still goes up regardless of who wins, etc.) and that pretty much the only "change" that has been going on these past 100 years is a continuing reduction of our personal liberties, an increase in "wage slavery" (ie a family of four could live off the income of one individual working 40 hours a week 50 years ago, now a family of three requires the income from two individuals working 60 hours a week to live the same lifestyle, etc) and the William Randolph Hearst / Rupert Murdock near total control of ALL the information we base our lives upon...

In short, I feel that I sufficiently demonstrated that it's pretty much all smoke and mirrors and that Something Else is going on...

Ray took all of that in, along with other data presented here and elsewhere, and has basically done a 180... not that he's pro - Obama now, but rather at the beginning of this he was saying McCain was the lesser of two evils and he would be better for the economy etc. and now he is saying that they are ALL very evil and not really very different at all and that basically what's going on is just a bunch of smoke and mirrors to keep us divided and violently fighting each other over something we really have no control over.

On the flip side, you've been pro Obama since the get go, stating that he is the lesser of two evils, and that somehow having him in the hot seat will bring about 'positive' change...

The only "change" I foresee regardless of who wins is: An increase in my taxes, an increase in our national debt, an increase in the number of hours I have to work to support my family, and a decrease in our personal liberties.

And that is EXACTLY what has been going on with Every president we've had for the past 100 years...

so, is that really "change" or is it more of the same?

Keep in mind that (to coin an ATS phrase) "isolated incidents" are not proof or evidence to the contrary. Sure, Reagan did this, Carter did that, Kennedy did this, Ike did that... it's the overall Pattern of the past 100 years that needs to be examined. That pattern (listed above) has Not changed regardless of who is in the hot seat and nothing being discussed here or elsewhere leads me to believe that that pattern will change now...

I kind of killed this thread the last time I got involved and pointed these things out... I think the concepts I spew are too depressing for folks to deal with so they just shut them out... and I feel that most folks are too terrified to stand up and fight against the system, or dare to be different...

The "preconceived" idea to which I was referring to is that your vote counts, that it makes a difference who is in the hot seat, and that "change" is in the wind...

Capici?

[You Can Call Me Ray]

In either case is your repeated badgering of Ryan really necessary? In my opinion you’ve yet to provide any evidence he’s blindly endorsing Obama.

I really cannot believe that you do not see the double standard going on here. Let me draw an analogy here (much as I did with my reference to our earlier debate on religion), and let's see how you respond:

If a BS artist shows up here (like Lear) and starts spouting crap, the members of RU will oblige by putting the screws to him. Our rules demand that when people point out issues where their crap falls apart, that they have to address those issues. If they continue to ignore them, they are warned. If they still continue to ignore them, they are banned.

Now please apply this same template to Ryan. SEVERAL pages back I provided clear evidence that not only is Obama guilty of confirmation bias in his interview with Anderson Cooper, but I also provided the evidence of the whole interview to Ryan, since he made a remark suggesting I took that quote out of context. I did not. I provided evidence to confirm Obama's confirmation bias. As of this post, Ryan has left it by the wayside....he has NEVER addressed it. Given the lack of response, why do you think I should think anything differently than I would think of a BS hoaxer who refuses to cop to evidence which shows him wrong. But beyond that... there is more than one example on these boards where, when I am confronted with evidence that shows me wrong, I suck-it-up, and post an admission of my erroneous comments/statements.

I don't really care about that experience issue anymore. But I use it as example to answer your question of my "badgering" of Ryan. It is symptomatic of confirmation bias. Were it a BS hoaxer, it would not be considered "badgering" but rather diligence in getting them to admit their BS. But apparantly, Ryan is given a pass. Could it be a bias inherent in the fact that he is one of the "RU Three"? Sure smells like it from where I sit.

Would it really hurt Ryan so much to say something like: "You were right, Ray, and you clearly showed Obama was guilty of confirmation bias." But to do that, Ryan would also have a chink in his armor in that he would have to admit he gave Obama the benefit of the doubt, and my point is NO POL deserves the benefit of the doubt, especially those from the Republicrat Parties.

And I could care less about this debate. It will be like the others...both of them with severe cases of verbal diarrhea and following their programmed schtick. NONE of their nonsense will change the fact that my vote is going for the Libertarian candidate. And without sounding too arrogant, at some point I believe other Americans who are sick of this will catch up with people like me and realize that voting for "none of the above" (from Republicrat tickets) is sending a message to the PTB. A protest vote is just as valid as any other vote.

Ray

[ryguy]

If a BS artist shows up here (like Lear) and starts spouting crap, the members of RU will oblige by putting the screws to him. Our rules demand that when people point out issues where their crap falls apart, that they have to address those issues. If they continue to ignore them, they are warned. If they still continue to ignore them, they are banned.

That's because the particular issues and "evidence" is very clear, cut and dry, and we can all pretty much agree that the presented evidence stands up to the actual definition of "evidence" and not just rhetoric or opinion. In the case of ufos, ghosts, etc...a claim is very cut & dry - black & white to seperate the B.S. from the cold, hard facts. Facts being those things you can touch, taste, hear and feel.

Now please apply this same template to Ryan. SEVERAL pages back I provided clear evidence that not only is Obama guilty of confirmation bias in his interview with Anderson Cooper, but I also provided the evidence of the whole interview to Ryan, since he made a remark suggesting I took that quote out of context. I did not. I provided evidence to confirm Obama's confirmation bias.

This is a good example - you read the interview and conclude that it's "evidence" that Obama is guilty of confirmation bias. How is your interpretation of the interview evidence? We could line up 10 to 20 people who would read the interview and likely half of them would disagree with your analysis that Obama is guilty of confirmation bias. It's too subjective - how you read it depends too much on your own personal interpretations of the interview, what you consider (or don't consider) to be "confirmation bias", and whether the statements made qualify as such. I thought that I'd responded to those issues and provided my own interpretation of the interview, but if I didn't I'll go back and make sure I've covered that particular topic, if you like.

Given the lack of response, why do you think I should think anything differently than I would think of a BS hoaxer who refuses to cop to evidence which shows him wrong.

Again - being shown evidence from a photographic expert that a picture is hoaxed is clearly "evidence" that a claim is false. Being shown an interview that could be interpreted in a multitude of different ways depending on your objective perspective...I can't believe you're calling such a thing "evidence."

But beyond that... there is more than one example on these boards where, when I am confronted with evidence that shows me wrong, I suck-it-up, and post an admission of my erroneous comments/statements.

Oh...erroneous now? Ok...

It is symptomatic of confirmation bias. Were it a BS hoaxer, it would not be considered "badgering" but rather diligence in getting them to admit their BS. But apparantly, Ryan is given a pass. Could it be a bias inherent in the fact that he is one of the "RU Three"? Sure smells like it from where I sit.

It might be because, as I said, what you call evidence is heavily dependent on interpretation. Maybe others reading this don't interpret the interview (or other things you're calling evidence) in the same light that you do?

Would it really hurt Ryan so much to say something like: "You were right, Ray, and you clearly showed Obama was guilty of confirmation bias."

I have said in my prior post that in this thread you've clearly shown that Obama is not squeaky clean. If you want me to agree with you about that particular interview, I'll have another look - but I doubt that my interpretation (or how other people interpret it) is going to come to 100% agreement with your impressions...

But to do that, Ryan would also have a chink in his armor in that he would have to admit he gave Obama the benefit of the doubt, and my point is NO POL deserves the benefit of the doubt, especially those from the Republicrat Parties.

I agree - I've given Obama the benefit of the doubt, in particular in the Acorn case, because I've yet to see evidence that he personally contributed to the wrongdoing. The monetary contributions were troubling, but AD makes a very good point that Acorn's mission statement was honorable - even McCain supported them in the past (see the evidence for that provided above).

NONE of their nonsense will change the fact that my vote is going for the Libertarian candidate. And without sounding too arrogant, at some point I believe other Americans who are sick of this will catch up with people like me and realize that voting for "none of the above" (from Republicrat tickets) is sending a message to the PTB. A protest vote is just as valid as any other vote.

Did you mention before that you're voting for the Libertarian candidate? I'd be interested in learning more about why you've made that choice...more that you may have learned about that particular candidate that made you turn in that direction?

Cheers,
-Ry

[You Can Call Me Ray]

Now please apply this same template to Ryan. SEVERAL pages back I provided clear evidence that not only is Obama guilty of confirmation bias in his interview with Anderson Cooper, but I also provided the evidence of the whole interview to Ryan, since he made a remark suggesting I took that quote out of context. I did not. I provided evidence to confirm Obama's confirmation bias.

This is a good example - you read the interview and conclude that it's "evidence" that Obama is guilty of confirmation bias. How is your interpretation of the interview evidence? We could line up 10 to 20 people who would read the interview and likely half of them would disagree with your analysis that Obama is guilty of confirmation bias. It's too subjective - how you read it depends too much on your own personal interpretations of the interview,

Wow. No. Sorry Ryan, you are just wrong here. I guess I have to spoon feed you again. I get the feeling you will simply not agree, but the evidence is not fuzzy. It is clear. Here:

COOPER: And, Senator Obama, my final question -- your -- some of your Republican critics have said you don't have the experience to handle a situation like this. They in fact have said that Governor Palin has more executive experience, as mayor of a small town and as governor of a big state of Alaska.

What's your response?

OBAMA: Well, you know, my understanding is, is that Governor Palin's town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We have got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month.

So, I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute, I think, has been made clear over the last couple of years. And, certainly, in terms of the legislation that I passed just dealing with this issue post-Katrina of how we handle emergency management, the fact that many of my recommendations were adopted and are being put in place as we speak, I think, indicates the degree to which we can provide the kinds of support and good service that the American people expect.

COOPER: Senator Obama, thank you for your time.

OBAMA: Great to talk to you, Anderson.

Note the first bold statement. Anderson was clearly asking Obama to address his experience viz-a-viz Palin's experience as mayor AND governor. Now I ask you to please look anywhere in Obama's response and tell me if you see anywhere that he addressed Palin's governor experience. He did not. Now you may try to say it is not "cut and dried" or one interpretation could somehow differ from another. But again, Ryan, you are simply wrong. Let us now look at the definition of confirmation bias as given in skepdic:

http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html

Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs.

I know you are not this stupid, Ryan. So the only conclusion I can come to is you are purposefully trying to obfuscate this when it is as clear as day. Obama selected Palin's mayoral experience in his reply because it "confirmed his beliefs". Similarly, he also ignored Palin's governor experience because it clearly does not confirm his belief. What he did is pretty much a perfect example of confirmation bias, especially since Anderson Cooper purposefully asked him to address her governor experience.

1) Ignoring the number of state employees in Alaska who fall under the governor. That would clearly not support his statements about running his campaign, for clearly the state of Alaska will have many more employees that fall under the governor.
2) Ignoring the budget of Alaska. That would clearly not support his statements about the budget of his campaign, which we know must pale in comparison to the budget of Alaska.

And at this point I have to say: I have pretty much lost all respect for you as a result of this little issue, Ryan. I think any other person who considers themselves a skeptic who is on the lookout for confirmation bias would agree that the above shows clear confirmation bias in Obama's answer. But you don't think so? So clearly you do not apply the tenets of fair skepticism equally if you are willing to say this is somehow fuzzy. All because you appear to favor Obama. Shocked, I am. I thought you were bigger than this. I guess on that score, I was the one who was wrong.


Ray

[You Can Call Me Ray]

Again - being shown evidence from a photographic expert that a picture is hoaxed is clearly "evidence" that a claim is false. Being shown an interview that could be interpreted in a multitude of different ways depending on your subjective perspective...I can't believe you're calling such a thing "evidence."

And I can't believe you are going to this length to deny that his words, NOT taken out of context, are not explicit evidence. Maybe you should be running for office, Ryan?

Ray

[You Can Call Me Ray]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/? ... YwNTNjNmY=

Just for the record, Alaska's FY2008 operating budget is $11.2 billion, and the state employs approximately 15,000 people. Those certainly aren't huge numbers in federal terms, but they're a good bit bigger than the Obama campaign.

Clear-cut confirmation bias. Deny it or spin it all you want. Doesn't change the facts.

Ray

[torbjon]

um... this is still Friendly, right?? The last time I saw this level of hostility and butted in you guys both told me that you do this all of the time and enjoyed it...

this is still fun and productive, yes??

If you guys really Are getting angry and frustrated with each other then Bernays wins again and we all lose...

It would break my heart to lose two good minds like yours to the likes of them...

just asking.

sorry for the intrusion.

[Access Denied]

Wow Ray, are you serious?

Let’s see if there just might be another way this could be interpreted shall we?

[beginning with your out of context quote in this post on page 10 of this thread, emphasis yours from above]

COOPER: And, Senator Obama, my final question -- your -- some of your Republican critics have said you don't have the experience to handle a situation like this. They in fact have said that Governor Palin has more executive experience, as mayor of a small town and as governor of a big state of Alaska.

What's your response?

OBAMA: Well, you know, my understanding is, is that Governor Palin's town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We have got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month.

Possible interpretation: Obama is discounting the significance of Palin’s 6 years of executive experience as Mayor of a very small town by comparing it to the size of his campaign.

So, I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute, I think, has been made clear over the last couple of years.

Possible interpretation: Obama is suggesting that both he and Palin have gained comparable executive experience over the last couple of years, he by running his campaign, Palin by becoming Governor of Alaska.

And, certainly, in terms of the legislation that I passed just dealing with this issue post-Katrina of how we handle emergency management, the fact that many of my recommendations were adopted and are being put in place as we speak, I think, indicates the degree to which we can provide the kinds of support and good service that the American people expect.

Possible interpretation: Folks in Louisiana should appreciate that and vote for me.

Possible conclusion: Obama is NOT suggesting he has more executive experience than Palin.

Facts important to interpretation you left out or possibly were unaware of:

1. The “situation” AC is asking Obama if he has the experience to handle is responding to a natural disaster like Katrina.

2. Both Obama and Palin have 12 years of experience serving as elected officials.

3. Palin’s experience includes serving 4 years as a member of the City Council of a very small town.

4. Obama’s experience includes serving 8 years as a State Senator in Illinois.

Now, are you saying this can’t be interpreted any other way other than the way you interpreted it and this somehow proves Obama (and by extension Ryan) is in denial (i.e. suffering from confirmation bias) about his executive experience?

If so then please explain in detail how you came to this conclusion and if not then I think you owe Ryan and this board an apology for your behavior.

Seriously.

[Chorlton]

um... this is still Friendly, right?? The last time I saw this level of hostility and butted in you guys both told me that you do this all of the time and enjoyed it...
this is still fun and productive, yes??
If you guys really Are getting angry and frustrated with each other then Bernays wins again and we all lose...
It would break my heart to lose two good minds like yours to the likes of them...
just asking.
sorry for the intrusion.

Politics and Religionisnt it?

I saw a little of yesterdays debate on TV this morning, and to be honest I just dont see the point.
2 respectable people sitting there throwing mud, lies and innuendo at each other to see who comes off best?. Fortunatley we dont have crap like that here in the UK.
IMHO no one 'wins' or comes off best in these face to face slanging matches and all it proves it who is the best mudslinger/liar.

Give them a 12 guage each in a dark room. That works for me. Then again Obama would have an advantage wouldnt he.

[You Can Call Me Ray]

If so then please explain in detail how you came to this conclusion and if not then I think you owe Ryan and this board an apology for your behavior.

Seriously.

You'd best just go ahead and ban me now, then. Because there shall be no apology forthcoming for "my behavior". If you and Ryan are not willing to admit just how much that smacks of confirmation bias, given the definition I referenced, then all I sense is hypocrisy...a circling of the wagons to shore up "your interpretation" and deny the obvious evidence of the words that WERE NOT TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT but rather presented wholly as they were in the transcript.

Fricking amazing that you cannot see how your own behavior is virtually parallel to that of "true believers" who will simply claim "alternate interpretations" in the face of evidence that clearly meets an accepted definition of a term. If no one else here is going to come forward and admit the obvious confirmation bias, then clearly I am in the wrong place.

Ban away!
Ray

[Zep Tepi]

Wow.

Speaking as a user and not as the owner of this site, I have to say it is pretty clear that Ray's point is being either ignored or overlooked.

The point being made is a simple one. For the umpteenth time, what was asked was this:

They in fact have said that Governor Palin has more executive experience, as mayor of a small town and as governor of a big state of Alaska.

What's your response?

"...more executive experience, as mayor of a small town AND AS GOVERNOR OF A BIG STATE IN ALASKA"

This was Obama's answer:

Well, you know, my understanding is, is that Governor Palin's town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We have got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month.

If you ask me, that is nothing more than a blurring of the actual facts as they relate to the question that was asked. Obama chose to ignore the number of people employed by the state of Alaska and the budget thereof. Whichever way you look at it, his answer was designed to make it look like his executive experience far outweighs Palin's, in other words, he was conning the interviewer and anyone else not looking too close at the facts.

Now, what has Ray been saying all along about this particular extract? "Confirmation Bias"
In my opinion, he is right.

We're all still friends here so can I just suggest you all stop getting your panties in a twist? Thanks.

Cheers,
Steve