America's first half-White president

[randomJACKASS]

The only time I wished for his failure was on election day of 2000 (though I was not too excited for the alternative either). On election day of 2004, I was hoping the earth would open up and swallow the lot of them!

I did vote for Obama, although reluctantly, and had it not been for that atrocious Palin woman, I may not have done that.....

 

[2minkey]

exactly
I have seen those kinda charts, and never liked um.

Better methods are out there.

That's why I only trust very selective, polls, stats, and other gathered data.

um, like what better methods? i'm not having a problem with the poll. it's a very simple poll. it says what it says. certain concerns are more acute than others for the sample population in the poll. i don't think this is really an occasion for deep epistemological inquiry. yes, what we're seeing is a direct result of how the survey/poll was structured and tabulated, but there's nothing sinister in that in an inherent sense, and this one was done in a common, widely accepted way. it's great to question statistical research. that's healthy. but there ain't nothing wrong with this 'un. it's easy and obvious.

 

[catocom]

I'm kinda like monk, I like round numbers....in percentages, except in certain 'volume' cases with liquid.

In people, 100% should be the base.

The polls with multiples doesn't work the best with percentages IMO.

 

[2minkey]

well then, i'll pass along your preferences to my stats guys...

 

[spike]

Hey Jim, it has come to my attention that you completely mangled the Rose/Brokaw disussion and totally changed the meaning of their sentences.

I would like to know why you tried to mislead us like this please. Below are the quotes you took out of context and the actual quotes.

Please explain why you tried to decieve us on this one.

Then why did two of the most politically informed and savvy commentators in America -- Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose -- say the following in an interview:

Montage of the Charlie Rose Tom Brokaw interview.

ROSE: I don't know what Barack Obama's worldview is.

BROKAW: No, I don't, either.

ROSE: I care about it almost as much as you do in terms of being a political junkie, but there are questions you don't know in terms of -- I don't know what Barack Obama's worldview is, I really don't know.

BROKAW: No, no, I don't either.

ROSE: I don't know how he really sees where China is and where it wants to go and how smart he is about that, or India, or the whole global structure.

BROKAW: Well, one of the things that --

ROSE: And -- or John McCain either.

BROKAW: Yeah, one of things I tried to get at in the national debate, and they began to answer it a little bit, which was -- which I think is an important question: What is the Obama doctrine and the McCain doctrine when there is a humanitarian crisis?

We are going through one this week in the Congo again, and I raised the Congo as an example of that, and the use of American military forces to intervene if we have no national security stake in all of that. And they both said in a kind of broadest possible terms, well, we should go help out.

But you didn't get the impression that they were going to go pull the trigger on that in the next day. That's an important discussion for this country to have.


...

ROSE: I don't know how he really sees where China is.

BROKAW: We don't know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.

...

ROSE: I don't really know. And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?

BROKAW: Yeah, it's an interesting question.

ROSE: Foreign policy -- economic crisis will stand out, but there is also enormous challenge here. Have we had a serious debate about foreign policy in this country?

BROKAW: No. We have not had -- there are a number of issues that have not come up. John McCain believes in a league of democracy, putting together a separate group to push against Russia. Charles Krauthammer -- Krauthammer -- wrote that that was -- he couldn't say, and I can, as Charles put it, he said, that is designed to kill the United Nations, which is a good idea. We didn't examine that very carefully.

We don't know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy. China has been not examined at all.

ROSE: At all.

BROKAW: Which is astonishing.

ROSE: But do we know about what they think? I mean, it is more likely we'll know more about John McCain, because he's been speaking about foreign policy --

BROKAW: Right.

ROSE: -- just over a longer period of time.

BROKAW: Right.

ROSE: But I don't really know -- and do we know anything about the people who are advising them, I mean, in terms of whether Susan Rice and where they are? And then who -- do we know who might populate these governments?


...

ROSE: He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational (sic) speeches.

BROKAW: Two of them! I don't know what books he's read.

ROSE: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?

ROSE: All right. Barack Obama, we know him because of -- he has been in the public view for a long time. He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational speeches.

BROKAW: Two of them.

ROSE: Exactly, two of them, two books. What do you make of him? Tell me what you see there, because I was talking to a friend of mine, and he said, I see someone who is clearly aspirational, someone who is clearly bright, someone who is clearly ambitious in the best sense of that, but who is clearly cautious. And in the end, he may very well be a man of the center.

BROKAW: He is a very interesting figure in American politics. He has made very few false steps along the way, when you think about this long, difficult road that he has been on -- against the Clinton machine first, and the appearances he has made all over the country.

Sure, he has hit some speed bumps, and there are conservative commentators who say there is a lot about him we don't know because we haven't asked enough tough questions -- the Bill Ayers relationship -- even those who say we've got to go back and explore what his drug use was.

ROSE: Even though Senator McCain had a chance to do that very thing and ask him about it in one of the debates.

BROKAW: And did not. He chose not to go there. And, look, he is a very smart guy. I love this phrase "postmodern," even though I don't know what it means.


ROSE: All right. We know people sometimes by the books that they read, heroes they have. We know John McCain, for example, enormously admires Teddy Roosevelt, probably more than anyone else in a political sense, and really wanted to run a campaign, you know, in which Teddy would be his model -- Teddy Roosevelt.

What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama --

BROKAW: He likes Justice --

ROSE: -- the books?

BROKAW: Well, he -- Thurgood Marshall is a big hero of his. He has got a picture of him in his office.

ROSE: Now was that because of his central role in arguing Brown versus Board of Education?

BROKAW: Well, I think that -- remember Barack Obama went to Harvard Law School and taught at the University of Chicago, and there was no greater legal figure in the African-American community or in those times when America was changing than Thurgood Marshall. So, that makes perfect sense.

You know, it's an interesting question. I don't know what books he has read. I know that he's got a great, curious mind. So does John McCain, by the way. He's always got a book in his hand. Mark Salter, who is a first-rate writer, is his --

ROSE: Right, and his best friend.

BROKAW: -- alter ego --

ROSE: Yeah, right, his alter ego.

BROKAW: -- and they're trading book ideas constantly. So that's an interesting question.

BROKAW: There's a lot about him we don't know.

Brokaw's actual quote:

"and there are conservative commentators who say there is a lot about him we don't know"

 

[Gonz]

Looks like Brokaw & Rose jumped on Obamas wagon without checking the destination schedule.

 

[spike]

No, that would be a completely silly conclusion. Weird that you came in reading it the exact opposite that Jim did though.

 

[jimpeel]

Hey Jim, it has come to my attention that you completely mangled the Rose/Brokaw disussion and totally changed the meaning of their sentences.

I would like to know why you tried to mislead us like this please. Below are the quotes you took out of context and the actual quotes.

Please explain why you tried to decieve us on this one.

I gave you the link to the actual video of the entire interview on Rose's site. Make of it what you will.

 

[spike]

I gave you the link to the actual video of the entire interview on Rose's site. Make of it what you will.

I'm asking you why you blatantly misrepresented the comments and tried to mislead us Jim. Could you please answer that question?

 

[jimpeel]

I'm asking you why you blatantly misrepresented the comments and tried to mislead us Jim. Could you please answer that question?

No effort to mislead. They said what they said.

 

[spike]

No effort to mislead.

Jim this was a concentrated and obviously purposeful attempt to mislead people. There is no denying that.

They said what they said.

And what they actually said in context has an entirely different meaning than what you attempted to portray it as. Even Gonz got a far different meaning from this.

"And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?"

You portrayed much different than the reality which was

"and do we know anything about the people who are advising them"

and obviously there's a big difference between

"BROKAW: There's a lot about him we don't know."

and

"and there are conservative commentators who say there is a lot about him we don't know"

Why would you completely change the meaning of the sentence by cutting out the part that says conservative commentators said it and not Brokaw? You even capitalized the word "There's" as if it was actually the beginning of the sentence. You actually spliced sentences and put quotes that don't go together next to each other. That is seriously deceitful stuff you tried to pull. I really can't imagine why you would do that to us and these anchors that you respect so much.

You completely changed the meaning of everything they said. Are you really going to just try to act like you're too stupid to know the difference or are you going to own up to the fact that you completely distorted the actual conversation in an attempt to mislead us?

You have a bit of explaining to do here.

 

[spike]

Hey Jim, could you please tell su why you would distort the meaning of a converation betweeen what you consider two of the most politically informed and savvy commentators in America?

I'm sure these heroes of yours would be pretty offended at you trying to mislead people by misrepresenting their words.

 

[jimpeel]

And what they actually said in context has an entirely different meaning than what you attempted to portray it as. Even Gonz got a far different meaning from this.

"And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?"

You portrayed much different than the reality which was

"and do we know anything about the people who are advising them"

and obviously there's a big difference between

"BROKAW: There's a lot about him we don't know."

and

"and there are conservative commentators who say there is a lot about him we don't know"

What was said was:

12:27 into the interview:
BROKAW: Sure, he has hit some speed bumps, and there are conservative commentators who say there is a lot about him we (the mainstream media) don't know because we (the mainstream media) haven't asked enough tough questions -- the Bill Ayers relationship -- even those who say we've (the mainstream media) got to go back and explore what his drug use was.

And then there's this:

You know, it's an interesting question. I don't know what books he (He is speaking of Barack Obama at this point --j) has read. I know that he's got a great, curious mind. So does John McCain, by the way. He's always got a book in his hand. Mark Salter, who is a first-rate writer, is his -

As to this:

28:08 into the interview:
ROSE: Foreign policy -- economic crisis will stand out, but there is also enormous challenge here. Have we had a serious debate about foreign policy in this country?

BROKAW: No. We have not had -- there are a number of issues that have not come up. John McCain believes in a league of democracy, putting together a separate group to push against Russia. Charles Krauthammer -- Krauthammer -- wrote that that was -- he couldn't say, and I can, as Charles put it, he said, that is designed to kill the United Nations, which is a good idea. We didn't examine that very carefully.

We don't know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy. China has been not examined at all.

ROSE: At all.

BROKAW: Which is astonishing.

ROSE: (They then begin speaking of "they" in reference to both candidates -- j) But do we know about what they think? I mean, it is more likely we'll know more about John McCain, because he's been speaking about foreign policy --

BROKAW: Right.

ROSE: -- just over a longer period of time.

BROKAW: Right.

ROSE: But I don't really know -- and do we know anything about the people who are advising them, (Yes, he said "them" but "them" not only includes McCain but Obama as well so "him" is not out of place. It is simply not the correct quote. The error was not mine, I merely repeated it so hence there was no effort on my part to deceive. -- j) I mean, in terms of whether Susan Rice (Specifically mentioned, Susan Rice is the senior foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama. No mention of McCain's adviser. -- j) and where they are? And then who -- do we know who might populate these governments?

And this:

38:06 into the interview:
ROSE: I care about it almost as much as you do in terms of being a political junkie, but there are questions you don't know in terms of -- I don't know what Barack Obama's worldview is, I really don't know.

BROKAW: No, no, I don't either.

ROSE: I don't know how he really sees where China is and where it wants to go and how smart he is about that, or India, or the whole global structure.

BROKAW: Well, one of the things that --

ROSE: And -- or John McCain either.

BROKAW: Yeah, one of things I tried to get at in the national debate, and they began to answer it a little bit, which was -- which I think is an important question: What is the Obama doctrine and the McCain doctrine when there is a humanitarian crisis?

We are going through one this week in the Congo again, and I raised the Congo as an example of that, and the use of American military forces to intervene if we have no national security stake in all of that. And they both said in a kind of broadest possible terms, well, we should go help out.

But you didn't get the impression that they were going to go pull the trigger on that in the next day. That's an important discussion for this country to have.

So they don't know about either candidate; but one of those candidates, who they knew nothing about his worldview, or China, or India, or the whole global structure is now the President of the United States and they still do not know anything about his worldview, or China, or India, or the whole global structure. That man is Barack Obama.

 

[spike]

Jim you clearly purposefully distorted the meaning of their words to imply something different then what they intended. You spliced sentences.

You substituted "him" for "them". That is certainly out of place. Why would you change that word unless you were trying to mislead us into thinking they only didn't know this about Obama?

Why would you completely change the meaning of the sentence by cutting out the part that says conservative commentators said something and not Brokaw? You even capitalized the word "There's" as if it was actually the beginning of the sentence.

Jim, I posted your quotes and the full quotes and in each case you have completely misconstrued their words.

So I ask you again, why would you intentionally try to mislead us by distorting the words of these commentators that you revere so much?

 

[Gonz]

He's not misleading anything...these guys, Rose & Brokaw specifically, the press, in general, knew little or nothing but slogans, platitudes & delusional hoping about Obama's agenda. They didn't investigate, they whitewashed & they ignored.

 

[jimpeel]

Jim you clearly purposefully distorted the meaning of their words to imply something different then what they intended. You spliced sentences.

You substituted "him" for "them". That is certainly out of place. Why would you change that word unless you were trying to mislead us into thinking they only didn't know this about Obama?

Why would you completely change the meaning of the sentence by cutting out the part that says conservative commentators said something and not Brokaw? You even capitalized the word "There's" as if it was actually the beginning of the sentence.

Here's the part you didn't, and apparently still don't, get. I did a copy 'n paste of the quotes -- just as you did. The errors are not mine. They are errors in Bernard Goldberg's new book. Go give him a ration of shit if he is wrong. I clarified what was said and I watched, and listened to, the entire interview. As I did, I used YOUR post #105 as the template for my last post HERE. I even included time notes so you could easily find them yourself in the video interview.

If there is any error in that post (#105) the error was in your post and I merely copied it. I do not, however, believe there was any error.

 

[spike]

Here's the part you didn't, and apparently still don't, get. I did a copy 'n paste of the quotes -- just as you did. The errors are not mine. They are errors in Bernard Goldberg's new book. Go give him a ration of shit if he is wrong.

Ah, I knew that because Goldberg ahs been completely debunked lately. So you did a copy/paste without linking to the source material and it bit you in the ass. It clearly looks like you personally where trying to mislead us instead of this idiot goldberg.

I clarified what was said and I watched, and listened to, the entire interview. As I did, I used YOUR post #105 as the template for my last post HERE. I even included time notes so you could easily find them yourself in the video interview.

Yes, using the actual transcript it really shows how misleading your post actaully was.

If there is any error in that post (#105) the error was in your post and I merely copied it. I do not, however, believe there was any error.

The error was that you posted a nisleading edits as your own to a conversation without checking them.

 

[jimpeel]

The error was that you posted a nisleading edits as your own to a conversation without checking them.

Your contention that when he said "there are conservative commentators" as meaning that it was conservative commentators who didn't know a lot about him was fallacious. When Brokaw said that, he was saying that conservative commentators were saying that the mainstream media does not know much about him. Brokaw is no conservative so his use of the word "we" can only mean the liberal mainstream press. It doesn't matter who called him on it.

12:27 into the interview:
BROKAW: Sure, he has hit some speed bumps, and there are conservative commentators who say there is a lot about him we (the mainstream media) don't know because we (the mainstream media) haven't asked enough tough questions -- the Bill Ayers relationship -- even those who say we've (the mainstream media) got to go back and explore what his drug use was.

 

[Cerise]

Jim this was a concentrated and obviously purposeful attempt to mislead people. There is no denying that.

As a liberal, everything you post is a concentrated and purposeful effort to mislead people.

 

[spike]

Your contention that when he said "there are conservative commentators" as meaning that it was conservative commentators who didn't know a lot about him was fallacious. When Brokaw said that, he was saying that conservative commentators were saying that the mainstream media does not know much about him. Brokaw is no conservative so his use of the word "we" can only mean the liberal mainstream press. It doesn't matter who called him on it.

Jim let me simplify this for you.

BROKAW: "There's a lot about him we don't know."

and

BROKAW: "....there are conservative commentators who say there is a lot about him we don't know"

these two phrases mean entirely different things. In the first case there's a misleading attempt to make it look like Brokaw thinks there's a lot about him we don't know. Yet in the real quote Brokaw is saying conservative commentators (not him) say there's a lot about him we don't know.

Now are you saying you actually can't tell the difference or are you going to own up to the fact that this is misleading editing?

As a liberal, everything you post is a concentrated and purposeful effort to mislead people.

No as evidenced by the post above and most of your posts the cons are the ones that try to mislead people and it's up to rational individuals to apply some logic and thought.