- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 7, 2009 at 9:30 pm #659334
JoBParticipantthe real comparison might be O’Reily and Oberman… at least the two of them base their rants on fact… no matter how they might abuse the stats to prove their point…
March 7, 2009 at 9:34 pm #659335
charlabobParticipantPlease give me an example of when Olberman abused stats (or made an error of fact) and didn’t clarify. Just curious about what is urban legend and what is fact-based :-)
March 8, 2009 at 4:42 am #659336
JoBParticipantcharlabob…
oops.. looks like i am about to be hung on an abuse of language charge…
both O’reiley and Oberman have been accused by their opposition of abusing statistics…
i don’t know for a fact that either has been found to make an error of fact and not clarify…
but i do admit that Oberman interprets facts from a liberal viewpoint while O’Reiley interprets his from a conservative viewpoint.
i listen to Oberman.. but always with the understanding that he is preaching to the choir when he has my attention…
that is all i meant…
mea culpa:)
I can’t even properly spell either man’s name…
Keith Olbermann and and Bill O’Reilly
for fun.. i put “Keith Olbermann errors of fact” in google.. and i got 255,000 hits…
when i put in “Bill O’Reilly errors of fact” i got 942,000 hits…
ouch!
March 9, 2009 at 6:16 am #659337
HMC RichParticipantSorry, I didn’t follow up on this post for a few days. JoB, You posed a question at the end of 16.
To answer your question. I believe in the truth. No one is perfect and the nice thing is that most people are fairly forgiving. I agree with your assessment from the last paragraph from that post.
I disagree that it was a private matter with the former Prez because of his position and that it is possible a similar situation could lead to blackmail.
We can disagree. I tried very hard to make this short too!
March 9, 2009 at 9:28 pm #659338
JoBParticipantHMC Rich…
LOL.. that situation did lead to blackmail..
political blackmail…
there wasn’t anything protective of the presidency or the country in the way that situation was handled…
Clinton wouldn’t have caved to outside blackmail.. why should he if he had successfully blustered his way though similar charges before?
Digging into his personal life and asking him legal questions.. to which he gave a strictly legal answer… was pure political entrapment… start to finish…
repeating the legal answer in public was a huge mistake on his part…
as was running true to his past behavior trying to bluster his way through when accused of sexual misconduct…
but i think the prosecutor counted on consistent behavior…
after all, he had been digging a long time at incredible taxpayer expense.. and he was compelled to come up with something… clever man.
With any luck that incident has warned future presidents that they can’t get away with that kind of behavior.. especially if they are minority party… but i doubt it.
it sure didn’t stop any of the republicans who were in favor of his impeachment from assorted hanky panky… my oh my…
i don’t think they learned the lesson about blackmail, do you?
April 12, 2009 at 12:01 am #659339
phatpayMemberHrmm…
I must say, it’s disappointing to see Traci be the first post in the thread and not follow it up.
But that’s the forum fighter in me.
On the other hand, I guess I admire her restraint. Just a drive by eye roll.
For me though, taking issue with an issue?
If this topic can be covered by CNN the Daily Show and everything in between then surely it can be at home on teh intrawebz.
You know… the place synonymous with pr0n.
/sigh
I love Ken’s point that it’s the right that pays for it and the left that knows where to get theirs for free.
Stimulating packages from the right?
April 12, 2009 at 5:11 am #659340
alki_2008ParticipantWell, until the political parties of the individuals that consume porn are studied…then I’m not going to assume anything. It could be all the outnumbered Democrats in Utah that are going online to get porn because there are so few ‘in-person’ options in Utah for them to pursue. :p
I’m just never 100% convinced by statistics. There are too many ways to interpret one set of data.
April 12, 2009 at 2:46 pm #659341
JoBParticipantAlik_2008
it’s clear you haven’t spent much time in Utah.
where there is sexual repression, there is porn ;->
but i am not sure how you gather accurate data on clandestine pursuits…
you could perhaps go undercover?
April 19, 2009 at 7:16 pm #659342
c@lbobMemberI was suprised that my little bomb is still near the top of the politics forum, of course there isn’t much traffic here at present.
As one who has been accused of raising my children to be abortion consuming heathens, absent morals, it is a giggle to see such haughtiness in some responses when the table is turned ever so slightly.
Reading the results carefully one can see that, after adjusting for bandwith, overall access to the internet and other factors, there wasn’t that much difference in consuption between highest and lowest ranking states.
Maybe it’s the homogeneity of consumption that is the bitter pill for some to swallow.
May 5, 2009 at 7:26 am #659343
dwbMemberI actually read the study. The way they measure “porn use” is by analyzing the ZIP codes of SUBSCRIBERS to a single “top 10” provider.
Given that there’s tons of *free* porn on the Internet, making the leap that red states consume more porn just because they purchase more of it is ridiculous.
I expect more from a science mag. For shame.
May 5, 2009 at 6:23 pm #659344
JoBParticipantdwb..
does that mean that democrats were simply more savvy consumers?
Or is it the opposite.. they are not savvy consumers because they didn’t know where to find the good stuff?
i think i will ponder than conundrum for a while..
;->
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.