Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ever heard of moveon.org? Ever hear those talking points splattered all over TV? I know, this is not disinformation, it's a credible source.
I think most folks have heard of moveon.org, but it might be the right-wing label-and-smear campaign against them that has given them most of their publicity. Meanwhile, if you have 'talking points' from them that are examples of deliberately false and/or misleading information, then maybe you could post or point to a couple of them. Otherwise, they are a liberal/progressive advocacy site not pretending to be anything else...
One trick pony? This is the same tripe you posted on Page-6 of the Hillary Clinton isn't that bad thread. It was worthless then, and it hasn't gained any ground since.
If it's "worthless," then post some statistics which prove mine wrong.
Or is it "tripe" because you don't agree with them because they show that Reagan's economic policy was successful?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, O' Reilly and Olbermann are equally retarded opinionists who push the agenda of one side and one side only.
I think O'Reilly is quite intelligent and makes a lot sense; I agree with him on many issues.
O'Reilly certainly doesn't push any agenda of any one side. He sometimes gets both liberals and conservatives mad at him; Olbermann only gets conservatives mad at him.
More proof is in the letters O'Reilly gets. One will say, "You are nothing but a conservative." And another will say, "You are such a liberal!". That shows right there that he doesn't pander to any one ideology.
Your opinion. There is more than enough left bias, you simply choosed to ignore most of it as it is not far enough left for your taste.
The topic isn't bias. It's disinformation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnbound2day
Yes, you are right. The mediamatters storyline about what an MSNBC reported said regarding the Hillary cleavage sensationalized story is far more important for us to focus on.
Pretty much fluff, there, I'd agree. But it's buried in the capsules, and they did have 19 other articles up that had at least a little more substance. Over at newsbusters, by contrast, they only have the Gaggle cleavage cartoon plastered across the entire top of the page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnbound2day
And they have no problem promoting his far left garble, while attacking O'Reilly for doing the same thing on the right side.
Various lies from the mouth of Bill O'Reilly have been posted, but not refuted. Assuming that 'garble' purports to be falsehood as well (rather than just things you don't like to hear), please post similar examples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnbound2day
Yep, checked the definition. Fits Mediamatters like a glove as well as many other sites on both sides of the spectrum.
Sure. Post an example of deliberately false or misleading information from mediamatters. Sounds like it ought to be easy enough...
If it's "worthless," then post some statistics which prove mine wrong. Or is it "tripe" because you don't agree with them because they show that Reagan's economic policy was successful?
Feel free to revisit the Hillary Clinton isn't that bad thread...
O'Reilly will say whatever he thinks will win the argument at that moment. He doesn't care about facts. He'll just say he made a mistake later. Or he will deny ever having said it at all. I know some of you hate Olberman but I found this clip interesting.
1980 ... 13.0 (end point for Carter -- start point for Reagan)
1981 ... 14.0
1982 ... 15.0
1983 ... 15.2
1984 ... 14.4
1985 ... 14.0
1986 ... 13.6
1987 ... 13.4
1988 ... 13.0 (end point for Reagan -- start point for Bush-1)
1989 ... 12.8
1990 ... 13.5
1991 ... 14.2
1992 ... 14.8 (end point for Bush-1 -- start point for Clinton)
2000 ... 11.3 (end point for Clinton -- start point for Bush-2)
2006 ... 12.7 (and climbing)
Thanks for proving my point... the poverty rate was lower when Reagan left office than when he began.
I don't know why you posted the poverty levels for the '90s and 2000s; those were the rates under different presidents.
BTW, the starting point for Reagan was 1981, not 1980.
Thanks for proving my point... the poverty rate was lower when Reagan left office than when he began. I don't know why you posted the poverty levels for the '90s and 2000s; those were the rates under different presidents. BTW, the starting point for Reagan was 1981, not 1980.
All the thanks are owed to you for providing yet another example of right-wing disinformation. You knew perfectly well that Ronald Reagan was inaugurated on January 20, 1981, and that the then most recent poverty rate was that for 1980. That was the rate from which he started. And as Reagan left office on January 20, 1989, the data for 1988 are those that applied at the end of his term. But instead of using those actual end-points, you chose the 'nearby' interval of 1981-89 and deliberately excluded all intervening years because those particualr data let you leave the impression (without actually stating it, of course, as that would have been lying) that during Reagan's term, some steady decrease from 14.0 to 12.8 had occurred. You even chide liliblu with a So little you know, implying that your cherry-picked data are all that needs to be told of the story.
But as the entire range of data quite clearly shows, liliblu's point that Reagan's policies were disastrous for poor people was quite well taken indeed. Poverty soared under Reagan, then barely ebbed back to where it began before taking off again under his successor, Bush-1. Thus, while not quite actually lying, you have knowingly crafted data that were deliberately designed to mislead and disinform a reader for partisan purposes. Nice work. You may have a future in the disinformation media.
The data following for selected years of the 1990's and 2000's were added for emphasis. Draw your own conclusions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
