McCain v Obama

[ryguy]

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:

I'm unclear why you insist that your interpretation of the evidence is the only "truth" and anyone who disagrees with your interpretation is somehow stupid or suffering from denial?

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:

He clearly was going after the area where she's had the most experience, which was as mayor. Maybe he didn't refer to her governor experience because it's nearly non-existant?

Comment from the Huffington Post article on Palin

CNBC's John Harwood reports that John McCain has selected Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.

"Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a self-styled "hockey mom" who has only been governor for a little over a year, is GOP Presidential candidate John McCain's choice for Vice President, CNBC has learned," he reports.

"According to a Republican strategist, Palin is the nominee, though McCain's campaign has not comfirmed this."

Now - how the hell can her Governorship even be considered as relevant? Obama's answer focused on the bulk of her experience (which is, in fact, ultimately her "experience"). Who are you to say why he ignored her governorship - and then call your analysis "fact", and anyone who disagrees with you as stupid or on the same order as a B.S. scam-artist? Do you realize how condescending that is?

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.

The problem with this term, confirmation bias, is that when you get in an argument with anyone who disagrees with you, it's too easy to pull out the accusation of confirmation bias. When anyone is in a debate, they obviously look for points that support their position and counter the position of the other person. Everyone who has ever debated any topic does that - including you in this thread. Yet, for some unexplainable reason, you come to the conclusion that whoever your disagreeing with is suffering from confirmation bias, or is stupid, because they don't interpret things in the same way you do.

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.

Your analysis, which is obviously clear as day to you (because, after all, you're the one who holds the position), is certainly not the conclusion that is clear as day to others. Others might read that interview and what's clear as day to them may be that Obama didn't directly answer some of the other questions as he could have - and his answer to this question could be interpreted in a million ways, one of which is what I mentioned above, he was making a point in his answer to refer to Palin's experience - which, in bulk, is not as governor, but as mayor of a tiny little Alaskan town. That's a documented, proven, here's-your-faked-ufo-photo FACT.

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.

See how interpretations can be subjective? You say he ignored her governor experience because it didn't confirm his belief. Prove it. Unless you're psychic, you can't. You're drawing an opinion. Just as I can easily draw an opinion based on the fact that she's only been governor for less than two years that he ignored her governor experience because she hasn't been there long enough for it to be considered relevant to this question.

What he did is pretty much a perfect example of confirmation bias, especially since Anderson Cooper purposefully asked him to address her governor experience.

You are correct on one point - he asked Obama to directly address her mayor experience AND governor experience. Obama chose to refer to her mayoral experience only. Why he chose to do so is up to subjective interpretation and opinion. A person's intentions can't be "proven" unless you can get Obama here and ask him yourself.

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.

The one point where you are correct is that Obama made a silly mistake of comparing his campaign experience to her mayoral experience. That was a stupid mistake, because it would have been more legit for him to compare his years of experience in the Illionois senate to her years of experience as Mayor. Instead he chose the aspect of his experience that's also been less than 2 years, therefore hurting his position. Which, by the way, using your method of classifying a remark as affected by confirmation bias, proves that he doesn't suffer from confirmation bias, because he selected something that does not confirm his beliefs, in fact it undervalues and contradicts the belief he is trying to elaborate on.

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.

Again - in your view he failed to compare his campaign experience to her governorship. In my view he failed to compare his Illinois senatorial experience to her mayoral experience.

Regardless of this nit-picking sort of discussion - if we actually discuss their entire range of experience, Palin with Mayoral and a couple years of Governor, and Obama with 12 years in the Illinois senate, and several years in the U.S. Senate...Palin's experience obviously pales in comparison. Anyone who says otherwise is suffering from confirmation bias.

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.

I respect your decision to lose respect for me based on a discussion. Trust me - it's not the first time someone has gotten so fed up with my tenacity that they throw their hands up in the air. Since this isn't a formal "argument" or debate, we aren't tied to the gentlemen's rules of word limits, and a ban of ad-hominem attacks. Ad-hominem, by the way, is something you and I are both guilty of in several of our debates. In this case, I can understand your frustration that I'm not laying down and agreeing with you. I know it's frustrating when someone doesn't agree with your interpretation on a matter you personally believe is "clear as day." But the truth is Ray - people often disagree on issues that are heavily subject to interpretation, but this is definitely the first time I can remember anyone who knows me well, ever making the sort of comments about me that you're making here.

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.

I'm surprised by the level of emotion that you've expressed on this topic. I don't share that level of emotional attachment to the subject of politics, even though I enjoy debating the issues. But since I do have that level of emotional attachment to the subject of religion - I can completely empathize with what you're feeling and why you're reacting this way. All I have to say is that I'd be sorry to see you go, because you have a brilliant mind and you are a bull-dog in any debate. But we need to find a way for these two bulldogs to carry out a world-class fight without it ending in one getting permanently injured in the process, if you get my drift.

Obviously I'm not going to admit defeat on these points, and neither are you. There's no reason we can't simply accept that and move on - we've done it before.

Best,
-Ry

[ryguy]

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

lol...agreed that we're all still friends.

What I think Steve's response above shows, and AD's response before that shows, is that "confirmation bias" is too easy a term to start throwing around when someone disagrees with you. The fact that we don't all agree, as this thread shows, proves that different people interpret things differently. Just because someone doesn't see things from your point of view doesn't mean they suffer from confirmation bias or that they're stupid. It means that the issue being discussed is highly controversial and being "right" is near impossible.

Of course we're all still friends! Man... it's really true what they say, never discuss religion or politics with friends or family.

**Edit to add**
On another note regarding banning. I think it's an unspoken/unwritten rule among the three of us that once any one of us enter into such a heated discussion with a member, we temporarily remove our "rights" to the ban/mod privs. We enter into an area on the same level as the member, with all of the limitations and rules that apply. We trust that the other two will handle things appropriately. As too many people have seen at other forums such as OM and ATS, mods who mix their business and pleasure end up driving the entire forum into the garbage pile. Only a lowlife will abuse his moderator status and abuse the ban button because he/she can't use logic or reason to stand up for himself in a discussion. In other words, in this discussion and all others in the future, I want to assure our members that even though you enter into a discussion with one of us three, all rules still apply to all sides, and you can't be banned simply for disagreeing with us. This is one of the most important principles of RU.
**/Edit**

Cheers,
-Ry

[Zep Tepi]

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:

I'm unclear why you insist that your interpretation of the evidence is the only "truth" and anyone who disagrees with your interpretation is somehow stupid or suffering from denial?

Why are people ignoring what Obama said in relation to the question asked? "He meant this" or "he meant that" simply does not come into it! He said what he said and the intent is pretty clear.

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:

He clearly was going after the area where she's had the most experience, which was as mayor. Maybe he didn't refer to her governor experience because it's nearly non-existant?

Comment from the Huffington Post article on Palin

CNBC's John Harwood reports that John McCain has selected Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.

"Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a self-styled "hockey mom" who has only been governor for a little over a year, is GOP Presidential candidate John McCain's choice for Vice President, CNBC has learned," he reports.

"According to a Republican strategist, Palin is the nominee, though McCain's campaign has not comfirmed this."

Now - how the hell can her Governorship even be considered as relevant? Obama's answer focused on the bulk of her experience (which is, in fact, ultimately her "experience"). Who are you to say why he ignored her governorship - and then call your analysis "fact", and anyone who disagrees with you as stupid or on the same order as a B.S. scam-artist? Do you realize how condescending that is?

Wow, just wow...! Nearly two years experience as governor of a state, i.e. leader of an entire state, but let's just brush that under the carpet as irrelevant shall we.... wow! I am properly stunned.

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.

The problem with this term, confirmation bias, is that when you get in an argument with anyone who disagrees with you, it's too easy to pull out the accusation of confirmation bias. When anyone is in a debate, they obviously look for points that support their position and counter the position of the other person. Everyone who has ever debated any topic does that - including you in this thread. Yet, for some unexplainable reason, you come to the conclusion that whoever your disagreeing with is suffering from confirmation bias, or is stupid, because they don't interpret things in the same way you do.

Facts are facts, Obama said what he said and it is not up to anyone else to interpret his words in any other way. To do so is just, well odd, to be perfectly honest.

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.

Your analysis, which is obviously clear as day to you (because, after all, you're the one who holds the position), is certainly not the conclusion that is clear as day to others. Others might read that interview and what's clear as day to them may be that Obama didn't directly answer some of the other questions as he could have - and his answer to this question could be interpreted in a million ways, one of which is what I mentioned above, he was making a point in his answer to refer to Palin's experience - which, in bulk, is not as governor, but as mayor of a tiny little Alaskan town. That's a documented, proven, here's-your-faked-ufo-photo FACT.

A million different ways? It was a clear answer to a direct question. I make that one way.

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.

See how interpretations can be subjective? You say he ignored her governor experience because it didn't confirm his belief. Prove it. Unless you're psychic, you can't. You're drawing an opinion. Just as I can easily draw an opinion based on the fact that she's only been governor for less than two years that he ignored her governor experience because she hasn't been there long enough for it to be considered relevant to this question.

Again, I'm flabbergasted at how quick you are to demean Palin's experience as governor of Alaska. Not relevant to the question? Two years is a half term in the Presidency btw...

What he did is pretty much a perfect example of confirmation bias, especially since Anderson Cooper purposefully asked him to address her governor experience.

You are correct on one point - he asked Obama to directly address her mayor experience AND governor experience. Obama chose to refer to her mayoral experience only. Why he chose to do so is up to subjective interpretation and opinion. A person's intentions can't be "proven" unless you can get Obama here and ask him yourself.

It can't be proven 100%, but anyone with a head and an eye for what has been going on in this campaign already can see Obama's answer exactly for what it was!

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.

The one point where you are correct is that Obama made a silly mistake of comparing his campaign experience to her mayoral experience. That was a stupid mistake, because it would have been more legit for him to compare his years of experience in the Illionois senate to her years of experience as Mayor. Instead he chose the aspect of his experience that's also been less than 2 years, therefore hurting his position. Which, by the way, using your method of classifying a remark as affected by confirmation bias, proves that he doesn't suffer from confirmation bias, because he selected something that does not confirm his beliefs, in fact it undervalues and contradicts the belief he is trying to elaborate on.

And you know this how, exactly? He said what he said and he said it for a reason. If he meant anything else, he would have said something else.

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.

Again - in your view he failed to compare his campaign experience to her governorship. In my view he failed to compare his Illinois senatorial experience to her mayoral experience.

Regardless of this nit-picking sort of discussion - if we actually discuss their entire range of experience, Palin with Mayoral and a couple years of Governor, and Obama with 12 years in the Illinois senate, and several years in the U.S. Senate...Palin's experience obviously pales in comparison. Anyone who says otherwise is suffering from confirmation bias.

Woah! "Pales" in comparison"?! Wow! How can someone's experience in the (State!) Senate be compared to the position of Governor? I already said I was stunned, right?

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.

I respect your decision to lose respect for me based on a discussion. Trust me - it's not the first time someone has gotten so fed up with my tenacity that they throw their hands up in the air. Since this isn't a formal "argument" or debate, we aren't tied to the gentlemen's rules of word limits, and a ban of ad-hominem attacks. Ad-hominem, by the way, is something you and I are both guilty of in several of our debates. In this case, I can understand your frustration that I'm not laying down and agreeing with you. I know it's frustrating when someone doesn't agree with your interpretation on a matter you personally believe is "clear as day." But the truth is Ray - people often disagree on issues that are heavily subject to interpretation, but this is definitely the first time I can remember anyone who knows me well, ever making the sort of comments about me that you're making here.

My opinion? What Obama said is not open to interpretation. He used clear language in an attempt to portray himself in a better light than Palin. It's not rocket science, he's a politician and that is what politicians have done since time began. That you and others are going to such extreme lengths in order to deny that obvious fact is extremely unsettling.

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.

I'm surprised by the level of emotion that you've expressed on this topic. I don't share that level of emotional attachment to the subject of politics, even though I enjoy debating the issues. But since I do have that level of emotional attachment to the subject of religion - I can completely empathize with what you're feeling and why you're reacting this way. All I have to say is that I'd be sorry to see you go, because you have a brilliant mind and you are a bull-dog in any debate. But we need to find a way for these two bulldogs to carry out a world-class fight without it ending in one getting permanently injured in the process, if you get my drift.

I can well understand why Ray has been reacting the way he has, but I won't say anymore than that otherwise I will be guilty of the very same thing. I will say I find the tone of the above paragraph to be condescending and uncalled for, however.

I will not stand for anyone being bullied or talked down to in this forum, that goes for admins and members alike. When something is clearly subjective and open to interpretation it is understandable when things get out of hand. This has not been one of those times.

In case anyone is thinking that Ryan and I have had a fallen out you are mistaken. It's just in this instance I believe he is wrong and have also said as much privately. Anyway, you should see some of the arguments we have had in the past, they really do turn the ether blue!

Cheers,
Steve

[Access Denied]

Ban away!

Now that's just silly...

I would also defend you if I felt your opinion was being attacked unreasonably.

That said, in hindsight I see I probably shouldn’t have got involved and kept my opinion to myself... I consider you both friends.

Later...

[Access Denied]

That you and others are going to such extreme lengths in order to deny that obvious fact is extremely unsettling.

It's quite simple really, Sarah Palin is a joke… she’s nowhere near as qualified as Obama to be President.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

[ryguy]

And you know this how, exactly? He said what he said and he said it for a reason. If he meant anything else, he would have said something else.

Exactly. For the same reason, you can't know why he ignored the governorship. My guess (which I speculated on above) is as good (or as bad) as yours. You and Ray are guessing where it helps support your opinion.

Woah! "Pales" in comparison"?! Wow! How can someone's experience in the (State!) Senate be compared to the position of Governor? I already said I was stunned, right?

haha...not as stunned as I am after reading that mate.

FACTS:
Sarah Palin's experience: 6 years as mayor of a small town, and about a year and a half as State governor.
Obama's experience: 7 years as Illionois State senator and then U.S. (that's federal, not State) Senator for 4 years.

12 years total relevant experience vs. 7.5 years relevant experience. Yes, her experience pales in comparison to his.

Torb - we're only comparing the potential presidents experience to the potential vice prez experience because the claim was made that even Palin is more experience than Obama - which is obviously not true.

I can well understand why Ray has been reacting the way he has, but I won't say anymore than that otherwise I will be guilty of the very same thing. I will say I find the tone of the above paragraph to be condescending and uncalled for, however.

I find it fascinating that you accept Ray's bringing my religion into the conversation, calling me stupid, AND several other insults and sit there in silence - and here I've written a paragraph without a single insult and you find it condescending? Okay mate...says a hell of a lot more about you than it does about me. By the way, I can only assume you took the "permanently injured" metaphor the wrong way. I meant the fight putting one person out of commission where they don't have the spirit or heart to carry on in future discussions. ffs...this forum is becoming like a battlefield. Friendly fire! Friendly fire! *smack*...sh*t...I'm hit...

I will not stand for anyone being bullied or talked down to in this forum, that goes for admins and members alike. When something is clearly subjective and open to interpretation it is understandable when things get out of hand. This has not been one of those times.

Yes it is. And if you won't stand for anyone being talked down to in this forum - looks like you're apparently a little late for the party.

In case anyone is thinking that Ryan and I have had a fallen out you are mistaken. It's just in this instance I believe he is wrong and have also said as much privately. Anyway, you should see some of the arguments we have had in the past, they really do turn the ether blue!

Yeah - last night I almost ended up with a busted up laptop (I was literally ready to punch it), and Steve was prepared to fly over to the U.S. so we could discuss the matter mano-a-mano.

Freakin politics man. I'm outta here...Yo A.D....wait up.

-Ry

[torbjon]

AD:

It's quite simple really, Sarah Palin is a joke… she’s nowhere near as qualified as Obama to be President.

um... Palin is the VICE presidential candidate, Obama is Presidential candidate...

your comparing Generals to Colonels....

and if you pull the "heartbeat away" thing, then ALL of these positions are just a few heartbeats away:

Speaker of the House of Representatives
President pro tempore of the Senate
Secretary of State
Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of Agriculture
etc.
etc.
etc.

do we rip on all of them as well?

(edit to add)

also, could someone explain to me how "years of existence" equates to "actual experience"?

So and so spent so many years in such and such a position... well, gee, that's nice.... Did they just sit there all of those years or did they actually Do anything or Learn anything?

Two people hold the same position: ONE DAY of being pro-active could get someone More "experience" than ten years of non-activity in that same position... yes?

[You Can Call Me Ray]

I appreciate that Steve can see the evidence for what it is, and not make any attempts to "interpret" it. The fact that several analysts saw the same confirmation bias and reported it (I provided one such link, there are others) would support such an examination of just the evidence, sans interpretation of "why Obama said (or didn't say) what he said."

In my opinion this all comes down to Ryan's pride. I have been willing to admit when I was wrong. He will not, and instead keeps the spin going. Sorry, but I cannot consider a person a friend who insists upon propping up his ego when the evidence is this clear. Moreover, the hypocrisy that such a person would use "confirmation bias" as an argument against UFO nutters (who LOVE to "interpret creatively"), but then twist away from its applicability here is too much for me to stomach.

And with that, I bid you adieu.
Ray

[ryguy]

Yet another insult, which of course Steve will agree with, so you've nothing to worry about.

Anyway I agree - there are some pretty massive egos around here, all around.

If there's anyone around here who's ever admitted he's wrong often, it's me. I've certainly been willing to change my mind/point of view a hell of a lot more often throughout the discussions on this forum than a certain few people around here. So much I've been accused of being a flip-flopper.

So that's yet another untrue insult you've made about me Ray, which of course will go unchallenged.

-Ry

[torbjon]

Okay, Everybody, Nola sez:

[Zep Tepi]

And you know this how, exactly? He said what he said and he said it for a reason. If he meant anything else, he would have said something else.

Exactly. For the same reason, you can't know why he ignored the governorship. My guess (which I speculated on above) is as good (or as bad) as yours. You and Ray are guessing where it helps support your opinion.

Woah! "Pales" in comparison"?! Wow! How can someone's experience in the (State!) Senate be compared to the position of Governor? I already said I was stunned, right?

haha...not as stunned as I am after reading that mate.

FACTS:
Sarah Palin's experience: 6 years as mayor of a small town, and about a year and a half as State governor.
Obama's experience: 7 years as Illionois State senator and then U.S. (that's federal, not State) Senator for 4 years.

12 years total relevant experience vs. 7.5 years relevant experience. Yes, her experience pales in comparison to his.

I said I was stunned for a reason, now even more so.
This is just one link (of many). I'm quite sure you will appreciate where this particular link comes from...

In a time when experience or lack thereof, seems to be at the forefront of the Presidential election, it is ironic that a governor is being attacked as having little to no experience. For anyone who understands how the US Constitution works, it is obvious that a U.S. Governor has more responsibilities than a U.S. Senator, yet so many seem to have no scope of the responsibilities of each role. In fact, a governor has an immense amount of constant responsibility and no recesses, as opposed to a senator, who is not required to vote, has many recesses, and is rarely, if ever, solely responsible for a piece of legislation..

I'll just leave it there for now. I chose that quote for a reason. If you like, I could provide some more.

Source

I might choose to address the other innaccuracies in your post another time.

Cheers,
Steve

[ryguy]

I'm going to take Torb's advice and take a time out. I almost did something tonight I would have regretted, and that really scared me...made me realize this has gone way too far.

Before the time-out: to Ray, if you're reading this, I'd like to offer you my deepest apologies for the way this thread went.

#1 - I can see your point of view and I can absolutely understand what both you and Steve are saying - that Obama ignoring the Governor experience was selective, and it was most certainly intended that way, by Obama, to shed himself in the most positive light. His comparison, selecting only her Mayor experience was unfair and lop-sided, and I can absolutely see how that can qualify as confirmation bias.

#2 - I'm largely at fault in this thread because I only got involved recently in order to counter the higher portion of anti-Obama posts. Not that that's your fault, you've explained why you did that and your explanation is fair. I think I got caught up in the heat of this highly-charge political discussion and it's surely affected how posts and quotes are read and absorbed.

#3 - In short, I know it's long overdue, but I accept that I'm wrong and I apologize.

I hope you'll come back, Ray, and let me make it up to you. I've always counted you as a good friend, and would hate to lose the discussions and conversations we've had...it's been quite a while now. No friendship is worth losing over a political issue during an election year (although I'm sure a lot of friendships out there do get destroyed...lol). No more politics on RU for me!

Time for a self-imposed...(or Nola-imposed!) time out! Hope to see you around Ray, and I hope you'll accept my sincere apology.

Best regards,
-Ry

[Chorlton]

Politics and Religion

POLITICS AND RELIGION GENTLEMEN !!

I would love to sling off at people in the Spirituality forum but I dont. I'm not allowed to and I feel thats wrong but thems the rules.
It should also be the rule for Politics. People have the same deep set beliefs about politics as they have about religion and no amount of discussion will change it.
BUT!
Different people can interpret a single sentence many different ways.
Politicians are very adept at saying one thing and having it mean many other things.
Personally I would side with Ray on his points, as Obama didnt answer the diret question that was put to him directly, he skirted round it. BUT THATS WHAT POLITICIANS DO!, They dont like answering direct questions.
Surely people, if a daft old Brit Musician can see that, you younger, superior (though less handsome suave and debonair) colonials can see it as well?.

This is a fantastic example of one of our more sharper TV interviewers, interviewing a Government Minister.
The Minster was asked a direct, simple question 12 TIMES ! and 12 times he went around it, never answering the question.It was a milestone in Political interviews and people could clearly see how Politicians will rarely tell the truth or answer a direct question
Watch and Lear mortals. as a UK TV God (Paxman) practically destroyed a Government Ministers career and finally woke up the British publc to the liars and conmen that run our respective countries.

2 Clips here, one complete and the other shorter
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BklT7Qy07Is
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwlsd8RAoqI

Politics and its fiendish manipulators are born devious.
There is no need to lose friends over the shite and dodges that Politicians ejaculate to get their snouts into the trough and get themselves and their hangers on onto the Gravy train.
Agree to disagree gentlemen. Behave, or I'll come over their and sort you out !

[You Can Call Me Ray]

I am taking my own "time out". I may or may not return. However, given that I virtually predicted the following when I noted the sexist photo of Sarah Palin's legs, I figured I would point this out:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... on-ribs-1/

RIVERSIDE, CALIF. (AP) - A San Bernardino County Republican group has distributed a newsletter picturing Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on a $10 bill adorned with a watermelon, ribs and a bucket of fried chicken.

Linking Obama to demeaning racist stereotypes drew denunciations from various GOP officials after the illustration appeared in the October newsletter of the Chaffey Community Republican Women, Federated, the Riverside Press-Enterprise reported Thursday.

As I predicted, the uproar over this is large and widespread. As it should be. But where was the uproar over a sexist photo of Palin? So yes, certain outlets of MSM are, indeed, biased. It is easy to see the bias in both FOX and CNN. My point is not partisan, but rather to question if it is a good thing for information outlets, which we need to trust and rely upon, to be so obviously biased? This was never the case in the 60s and 70s.

I have never stopped being a student of information theory. There are things going on that we do not yet understand, and by that I am not only referring to man-made manipulation a la Bernase. I am referring to something much, much bigger and more fundamental. To draw another connection: It is my strong belief that both Dem and Repub parties are hopelessly infected (nay, polluted!) with viral memes...perhaps the SAME viral memes. Our country would be in much better shape if we disengaged from these infected organizations.

Ray

[You Can Call Me Ray]

I'm back after a well-needed break...

#1 - I can see your point of view and I can absolutely understand what both you and Steve are saying - that Obama ignoring the Governor experience was selective, and it was most certainly intended that way, by Obama, to shed himself in the most positive light. His comparison, selecting only her Mayor experience was unfair and lop-sided, and I can absolutely see how that can qualify as confirmation bias.

#2 - I'm largely at fault in this thread because I only got involved recently in order to counter the higher portion of anti-Obama posts. Not that that's your fault, you've explained why you did that and your explanation is fair. I think I got caught up in the heat of this highly-charge political discussion and it's surely affected how posts and quotes are read and absorbed.

#3 - In short, I know it's long overdue, but I accept that I'm wrong and I apologize.

Thank you, Ryan. I really do appreciate it. And with similar sincerity, I apologize if I offended you with my comparison of your religious beliefs to political arguments. I know they are different, very different as I will point out in a forthcoming response to Chorlton. My only point was to try and call for more of an open mind when dealing with politics than with religion, because in politics we are certainly not talking about any kind of "deity"... in fact, evidence points to the contrary all too often!

I am, more than ever, of the firm belief that the domain of politics is perhaps the most susceptible to gross infections via virulent memes. The very nature of politics, which is to distinguish ones beliefs from others so as to achieve power over many, is dangerous. And I believe ALL western Democracies are showing signs of being lackadaisical with respect to identifying when viral memes have taken over. One only needs to examine history to see how true this is. So then a question comes to mind:

Q: If we agree that the polemics that will inherently arise from partisan politics are destroying the Democracies that used to be shining beacons to the world, how do we reshape the idea of Democracy, and the politics that go along with it, to reinvigorate the process of self-governing?

In my mind, the first step has to be to completely turn away from the polemical political machines that have brought us to this place. There is no doubt in my mind that both the Dem and Repub Parties are infected, likely beyond repair. And this infection easily overtakes the "candidates" that these parties put forward. It is part of the human condition to HOPE that someone can "save the system". But at some point, the patients have to fully admit when the "system" is sick, ill, infected, and quite possibly DYING.

One thing about ALL great civilizations that we learn from history is that they, like us, have finite lifetimes. Furthermore, we herald those times when one idea meets its demise because it has most often been replaced with something better. This was the presence of mind that our US forefathers had to realize when it was time to stop taking any more BS from "The Powers That Be", and usher in the final death to see the resurrection in a new form, a better way.

If not us, who? If not now, when?
Ray