The Second Year of the Obama Administration: Facts, Opinions and Discussions

Well JW, that's because you only focused on the not-so-serious opening part of my post. But hey, let's ignore the real point of what I said:

"The other obvious factor is that the story itself doesn't support its conclusion, and instead relies on statements from the administration itself...It doesn't make the conclusions automatically false, but I'm sure everyone would at least like to see the figures used."

I even bolded the relevant sections, and threw in a underline for good measure. So right. It makes perfect sense for your reply to focus on Obama being a sleeper agent, because otherwise, an actual discussion might have to take place.

For the amount of time you guys rail on against FOX news and its lack of journalism, you guys sure do like to support a double standard. Here's another example of a traditionally left leaning news organization that provided no facts whatever to support its conclusion, and the strongest reply made so far basically revolves around GAP asking "who cares, do you check every news source?"

Except GAP's question is easy to answer. Yes, I certainly try to. And you should to.

 

That post, moreso than the last one, was both stupid and offensive. It is inappropriate to suggest that I or anyone else "isn't interested in real discussion."

Especially when your point is so poorly made. You complain that a story about a Congressional Budget Office report "only cites Administration officials" and doesn't support it's argument. Though it should be painfully obvious, let's review a few things. First, the Congressional Budget Office is already non-partisan and neutral. You don't need a competing non-Democratic analysis, because this wasn't one to begin with. Second, government officials were quoted because the government produced the report. Third, the story does support its argument by giving exact numbers and then citing the source of those numbers. If stating facts and giving citations doesn't count as "supporting one's argument" in your mind, I'm sort of curious about what does.

Here's the report in question. Try not baiting next time.

 

JW, all my original post said was that I wanted to see the actual data because the article didn't provide it. My post wasn't focused on anyone here, and in fact, I said from the beginning that the claims could be true, I just wanted to see them. In reply, there were a couple of flippant posts in a row that didn't focus on any kind of discussion. I think you're throwing around the "baiting claim" a little too easily, unless you actually wanted to have a serious discussion about:

"Plus, we all know that Obama is really a Communist sleeper agent, so it's like the exact same situation!"

But I'm quite sure that was simply a sarcastic reply, right?

Really, all you had to do, in your first reply to me, was provide a link to the same GAO report you ended up providing a link to from a neutral standpoint, if that's what you wanted to do, instead of becoming automatically defensive about Obama.

 

Then you should have made a simple request, instead of two ludicrous suggestions, the latter of which was demonstrably false. Your first post received all the seriousness it deserved. If you'd like to "get serious" and take this to someone else for review, I welcome you to it. In the meantime, I'll thank you to stop impugning my motives for pointing out what were obvious flaws in your original argument.

 

I have no idea what that means.

My initial reply was made to FID, in response to a link he posted, so it's strange that you'd ask me to request anything. If you wanted to offer a clarification, as anyone can reply to any post here, then it fell to you to simply do that. You made the choice to respond in a sarcastic manner because it seemed like you felt you had to defend the administration without actually answering anything that I asked. (which, ironically, you did in your second reply)

I also find it strange that you'd mention "flaws in my original argument," since you haven't addressed any of those points beyond posting that Obama is a sleeper agent, which was never a claim. My original point was that the 1)the original source was left leaning (which it is) and 2)that the link didn't provide any data. (which it didn't.) Certainly no flaws with any of that.

 

Except, of course, AFP is not traditionally left leaning as you so happily assert, it's a corporation that's quite entrenched in the French state & has been mandated by the French parliament to be politically neutral. The only thing you're showing here, is that you would happily re-hash the myth that everything that isn't Fox is just a left-leaning sham (being infiltrated by the KGB, does not make you traditionally left wing). Obviously you should try to find sources for every story, but there's a difference between that & automatically assuming that the story from AFP is going to be slanted & partially untrue. Saying they give no numbers is a rational argument, saying "they had KGB agents, so I don't trust them" is not only irrational, it's downright silly.

Seriously, sometimes when I hear the American public debate, you'd think the Soviet Union had never fallen & Communists abound everywhere (oh, the hordes!).

 

Okay sure, it relies on the words of the administration. At least it says so and anyone with half a brain can pick that up and take it with a few grains of salt if need be. That's nothing compared to how Fox makes up lies and exaggerations, then preaches them as gospel.

 

I made the choice to respond because in a sarcastic manner because I found your post at best inappropriately dismissive, and at worst outright insincere. Both of which stemmed from the fact that you were more or less wholly wrong, which we'll get to a moment.

I respond now because, regardless of what did or didn't happen in the earlier posts, your repeated attempts to dismiss my posts as, for instance a need to "defend the Administration" is inappropriate. You don't have insight on my motives for posting. And if you did, it would still be irrelevant, as that doesn't address the substance of what I said, so I'm not sure why you're so eager to bring it up.

1. Really? How are you supporting the claim that AFP is generally seen as left-leaning? It's clear that you feel that way, but I'm not aware of any such broader perception. Trying to pole around the Internet a bit, the only thing I'm finding are complaints from openly conservative organizations that are dedicated to attacking "liberal media bias," like NewsBusters.

2. Apparently you didn't read the link.

So to review. They gave you a source. They told you what was being measured. They gave you the exact figure for this year's deficit, and told you the difference between that figure and the previous year's deficit. That is the entirety of the relevant data needed to support the claim that Democrats shrank the deficit. They gave a comparison of the two figures, and the more recent one was smaller. That, by definition, is "shrinking." There is nothing else. The only thing further would be delving into the report to look at how the spending and revenue was divided by source. But these sort of details almost never appear in a news story of this sort. You don't have an argument here.

 

Fox News must really keep you guys up at night. Otherwise, I don't know what else to add. Maybe that I'm sorry for all the loss and suffering that this issue seems to have caused you? Hopefully through time and a lot of glorious re-education, the pain will diminish.

I swear as sure as the clock strikes 13, something like this won't ever be questioned again.

 

Nah. I sleep like a baby. There's no Fox News apologist that keeps me awake at night, but what would keep me awake if I did care what a Fox News apologist says is the sheer amount of cynicism that drips from the Fox News apologist's words.

"Oh, it's a left wing source," they cry whenever there's good news to report, because surely Dummycrats are evil, filthy liars as it's so obvious. And I'll even admit that in my deep cynical moments I've used that excuse as well. However, I've learned 1) if a source offers facts then check those facts before decrying left/right wing and 2) Hanlon's Razor. This has helped me let go of much of my cynicism. Meow when I see a Fox News apologist, such as yourself I refer to Hanlon's Razor to figure out your replies.

So, sleep well. And remember: Both sides are bad so vote Republican next week.

 

It takes an incredible amount of gall to dismiss facts that one doesn't like as suspect for coming from "traditionally left leaning" sources while in the same breath accusing everyone else of running away from substantive discussion.

 

Why are you bothering to discuss anything beyond the time of day with Mr44, J-W? You really should know better by now.

 

Uhm, not really. As I said before, I don't get any FoxNews here in Belgium (& hopefully won't any time soon, PowNed is bad enough). Not going to admit that AFP isn't traditionally left leaning, are you? =)

 

And why would you post that, KW? It's certainly uncalled for. For once, I just wish you would sit down and discuss the origins behind why you so fiercely switched to your mindset of treating those who may disagree with you with such scorn. I don't think it's warranted.

And JW, honestly, would it matter? The funny thing is that there's been no discussion on what was originally asked, which focused on what figures were used to come up with the conclusions presented by the original link- because there weren't any. The main point still remains, that had you been so inclined, all you had to do was post a link to the GAO report, and we all could have crunched the numbers. I know you guys are aware that administrations fudge numbers all the time to put themselves in a better light, and exchanges like this happen all the time in the forum.

Instead, what we got was a snide reply about "Obama being a sleeper agent," which was pointless because Obama wasn't even the focus of the original observation. Then, a question which basically asked "who cares, do you check every source you read?" and finally concluding with the mother of all substantive replies, quoted directly- "That's nothing compared to how Fox makes up lies and exaggerations, then preaches them as gospel," of which I still don't know why that was included, because Fox had nothing to do with the original article.

Look, I get the pack mentality, I really do. I just don't agree with it, because it turns into a bully exchange. But if I'm "running away from substantive discussion," I'd sure like to see where it was, because I truly must have missed it.

 

And thus we round on almost a full business week where you try to defend your attempted dismissal of a news story by acting wounded and accusing us of ganging up on you. Let it go. The whole is pretty well dug, by now.

 

Um, JW, just to keep the facts straight- My last post was on 10/28. I intentionally didn't respond at all yesterday, because I knew it would be pointless. However, after that, there were 4 posts in a row including one from you, yourself, which came after mine. So it's a bit strange that you would now summarize things as you just did. Say what you will, but don't pretend that I'm the one who is not letting anything drop.

Half the people here already agreed that the original link didn't provide its own support-as AlphaRed indicated in his own words: "okay sure, it relies on the words of the administration. At least it says so and anyone with half a brain can pick that up and take it with a few grains of salt if need be."

So, yes, we have come full circle, because I simply wanted to examine the claims made in the original article, of which no one has actually addressed up to this point. All the extra fluff is just a series of dodges to that question.

 

Ultimately, there's this. You keep complaining about the fact that A)you didn't get the report as fast as you wanted and that B)you just want to "crunch the numbers" and "examine the claims." If you wanted the report, you could have searched for it, found it, and posted it for all of us--as I in fact had to. Regardless, you've had it now for several days. No one has or can stop you from crunching any numbers you'd like to.

Instead, you've chosen to cast aspersions on all the rest of us because we didn't respond positively to your "joking" post whose major points included one that no one else finds credible. That's not a unique phenomenon. If you want your posts taken more seriously, make posts that are more serious. Until then, enough with the complaints about how we're all over-sensitive because we treated a bad post of yours in a way that reflected its quality.

 

But that's not what happened. The problem is that you're completely throwing out the debate structure. So your conclusion is that all I had to do was ask a question, go find out the information myself, and then answer it to my own satisfaction. 3 posts in a row, all made by me, addressed back to me, and everything would have been fine. Under your system, then no one would ever post in a thread because the answer is nothing more than a quick trip to Wikipedia away. Except that's not how the forum works. People make claims, questions are asked, and then the original author, or others who want to join in, all debate the topic. This is not a new idea, and is the very basis for the existence of the Senate.

This is actually what happened. FID linked to a story. I questioned the story. You replied, except you felt you had to defend Obama for some reason, despite the fact that neither FID or myself mentioned Obama before you did. Your reply caused me to claim that you were being overly defensive toward Obama (because again, no one mentioned him before you did) for which you mentioned that I was baiting, but I don't think that was anything close to baiting, which was yet to come.

A whole bunch of other people then all threw straw man arguments about seeing communist conspiracies, or they asked "what's the big deal, do you check every source?" or threw in a rant against Fox News. None of which had anything to do with anything. In your second post, you actually did link to the GAO report, but then never examined it again.

What I think is that you guys all impeached your own future arguments. The first time GAP questions a non-supported link, I want everyone to ask "what's the big deal, do you check every source?" because that's the standard he put forth in this thread. The next time anything by someone like Rush Limbaugh is held up as truth, and you question it, I want everyone to turn it back on you and simply say "eh, you just can't handle the truth," because that's the standard you put for yourself. I don't have to give you a lecture on civility, but I think if you were to go back and review the contents of this discussion, I think you'd find that you're skewing it away from the direction it actually took.

You keep saying that my initial point wasn't credible, but you haven't ever addressed that specific point. A debate is more than saying it, a debate is actually proving it. Wouldn't it be great if someone could say something, and all that is required is for someone else to say "no, you're wrong," and leave it at that? But then, what would be the point?

 

A couple gross flaws in your last post.

1. You have as much the burden of proof as anyone. FIDo posted a news article, which generally meets our standard for evidence in a discussion. If you had reason to doubt the findings of the article, the burden of proof was on you to find evidence that suggested it may have been wrong, not on him to keep digging until we reach your unknown and still unstated level of satisfactory evidence.

2. The Obama remark was meant to indicate how frankly paranoid and poorly thought out your first post on the subject sounded. Others sounded off similarly, since you'll note that "vote Republican" is strictly irrelevant in that we weren't discussing voting.

3. The fact that everyone took you as seriously--rather than, as you claimed after the fact "jokingly"--dismissing AFP because they were once in their whole history infiltrated by a national espionage agency suggests that the fault is, again, much more in your deficient communication than anything we did.

4. Why do I need to examine the report? Or, more precisely, why can't you? Especially when you are the one that claims such curiosity about it?

You've still never addressed how AFP is "generally left-leaning." Or why you won't actually talk about the report you've supposedly been dying to talk about (You could just go ahead and do this any time, you know.). Or how the news article could have supported its argument anymore than it actually did. Or how it's something short of hypocritical for you to make a post that essentially boiled down to "I don't think so" in response to a news story, but accuse us of having poor standards in discussion. Maybe give a reason--one that you can actually defend--why you doubt someone's article/facts, next time.

 

Except again, that's not what I said. Again, this was my first post:

"The other obvious factor is that the story itself doesn't support its conclusion, and instead relies on statements from the administration itself...ie- "according to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner who said so in a statement...." It doesn't make the conclusions automatically false, but I'm sure everyone would at least like to see the figures used. Otherwise, it's eh...meh..."

Honestly, I've already posted, and re-posted that once before, so I'm not sure where you are drawing your interpretations of my post from. Pick apart anything in that statement that's even remotely close to what you are trying to characterize it as. Maybe besides the opening KGB dig, it's not even all that strong of a statement. It's something that one would expect to see dozens of times all over the forum- ie "that story from CNN might be true, but it doesn't provide any sources in the article, so we don't know..."

I never said anything was automatically wrong, or that the conclusions were false or anything of the sort. That's your "you either agree with me or not" mindset coming to play. I'm not "dying to talk about" a specific report either, as you were the one who first linked to it. Everything else was added by other people- Obama, voting for any party, etc.. Those points were not mentioned by me, so you can't act like I'm expecting a response for something I never mentioned in the first place.

Now, knowing all this, what would it take to have you respond in a normal manner and just move forward?

 

Look, J-w, in all the years I've lurked the senate, I've never ever seen Mr44 be wrong about anything, so I don't know how you would have the gall to suggest he's wrong in this.

 

I've been wrong about plenty of things. They just should be things that I've actually said, and not some strange over-reaction.

BTW, if anyone wants to understand the left-leaning origins of the AFP, they should start by looking up the connection between François Mitterrand, the French Socialist Party, and the French Urba organization.

If we start at the beginning, the charter that GAP mentioned existed during the origins of the AFP back in the 50's. In addition to having a mandate of being "neutral," (except with matters of the French state) the AFP was forbidden from taking on private investors. These restrictions ended up acting as a barrier against the AFP, as other news organizations began to enter the global market/digital age.

When Mitterrand was elected in 1981, the French Socialist party both modernized and had a hold on the AFP (which at the time of Mitterrand's election was 200 million francs in debt) Now, the "Urba organization" was a secret political group which was officially, but unofficially organized as a government within the French government, and which had the sole purpose of promoting socialist party agendas and contracts. When it was revealed, the "Urba conspiracy" was actually a blemish against the Mitterrand administration.

But anyway, the previously mentioned KGB agents within the AFP were important, because part of the fallout was that the Mitterand administration wasn't particularly interested in "rooting" out the Soviet influence within the news organization itself as long as the goals of the "Urba" were also upheld. The Mitterand administration was responsible for increasing the size of the AFP, and many of the AFP's management were put in place during that time, from 1981-1995, precisely the time of the KGB influence.

Now, Chirac and Sarkozy was/are both right wing politicians, and I can't say how much they have influenced the AFP, but the fact remains that the AFP has a lot of socialist party influence within its upper management, especially with regards to a focus outside of France. Honestly, I didn't go into any of this in my initial post because it would have been way too much detail for the point that I was initially making, but I also didn't just pull the claims of being "left leaning" out of my butt either...

So yeah, I'm sure that the random statement of "But Obama isn't a sleeper agent," sure did prove me wrong, especially since such a statement didn't have anything to do with anything that was actually said...

 

I don't believe it. I ask you to back up your claim with an unbiased source, (meaning lacking a history of socialist infiltration, for instance), exemplifying a time you, Mr44, have been wrong.

 

Well, I only go by rumors that I've ever been wrong. Direct proof might be more difficult to come by. "Mr44 being wrong" may be just as elusive as a modern example of a unicorn.

Except when it comes to mathematical equations and/or statistics, which are my Achilles Heel. Lowie, for one, is always fond of correcting my math errors, but the general answer is in the ballpark, minus a decimal point here or there.