quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
But well-sourced journalism is a lie, because the sources are unnamed.
Got it.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
But well-sourced journalism is a lie, because the sources are unnamed.
Got it.

How do you know the journalism is "well-sourced" if the sources are unnamed? You're just making assumptions. I'd bet your assumptions of the well-sourcedness of an article that relies on unnamed sources is in a direct relationship with how well the article aligns with your beliefs.

quote:

Only the most sycophantic viewers fail to realize this

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

you said absolutely nothing there that is even in the ball park as an answer to my questions.

your "mash-up" point is meaningless. some people saying similar, or even the same things are not evidence of a monolithic place given there are a dozens of others NOT saying those same things, and that there are a limited number of ways some things can be talked about, especially if some of those people are coming at the issue from a similar perspective. these people also utter thousands of words, when that occurs, some of them are bound to be the same.

this same phenomena you are talking about can be done at any network.

as far as those "well documented 'talking points'" that are coordinated between the rnc, the white house and fox, wellllll, sorry, youre just going to have to document them all. should number in the many hundreds right? with insider information that actually SHOWS coordination too right?

(you don't think the same pseudo "criticism" could be levied at other networks at other times in history?)

and then, account for all the fox personalities who are not conservatives or republicans who are not just guests, but regular hosts---how do they fit into the "fox machine?"

again, its clear to me you don't actually watch fox, but rather, you read/view occasional criticisms of the network and somehow think that passes muster. what youre doing is a joke and insulting to viewers.

quote:

Only the most sycophantic viewers fail to realize this

sometimes the phrase "fuck you" is so close on my lips. smug pompous ass will have to do.

if you want to criticize the network, watch it---faithfully.

and also again---whats the "blitz" going to look like?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

you said absolutely nothing there that is even in the ball park as an answer to my questions.

your "mash-up" point is meaningless. some people saying similar, or even the same things are not evidence of a monolithic place given there are a dozens of others NOT saying those same things, and that there are a limited number of ways some things can be talked about, especially if some of those people are coming at the issue from a similar perspective. these people also utter thousands of words, when that occurs, some of them are bound to be the same.

this same phenomena you are talking about can be done at any network.

as far as those "well documented 'talking points'" that are coordinated between the rnc, the white house and fox, wellllll, sorry, youre just going to have to document them all. should number in the many hundreds right? with insider information that actually SHOWS coordination too right?

(you don't think the same pseudo "criticism" could be levied at other networks at other times in history?)

and then, account for all the fox personalities who are not conservatives or republicans who are not just guests, but regular hosts---how do they fit into the "fox machine?"

again, its clear to me you don't actually watch fox, but rather, you read/view occasional criticisms of the network and somehow think that passes muster. what youre doing is a joke and insulting to viewers.

quote:

Only the most sycophantic viewers fail to realize this

sometimes the phrase "fuck you" is so close on my lips. smug pompous ass will have to do.

if you want to criticize the network, watch it---faithfully.

and also again---whats the "blitz" going to look like?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
But well-sourced journalism is a lie, because the sources are unnamed.
Got it.

How do you know the journalism is "well-sourced" if the sources are unnamed? You're just making assumptions. I'd bet your assumptions of the well-sourcedness of an article that relies on unnamed sources is in a direct relationship with how well the article aligns with your beliefs.

Well... No one knows for sure.... But WaPo and NyTimes reporters for example vis-a-vis stories on Trump-Russia have claimed to have 10-20 unique sources on their major breaking stories.

So I AM not just making assumptions. I AM, however, taking the word of the reporters. I know both these papers have high journalistic standards. If the story came from either of these papers, REGARDLESS of content, and it wasn't simply an opinion piece, I would examine the assertions, and trust that the story was well-sourced on those assertions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
But well-sourced journalism is a lie, because the sources are unnamed.
Got it.

How do you know the journalism is "well-sourced" if the sources are unnamed? You're just making assumptions. I'd bet your assumptions of the well-sourcedness of an article that relies on unnamed sources is in a direct relationship with how well the article aligns with your beliefs.

Well... No one knows for sure.... But WaPo and NyTimes reporters for example vis-a-vis stories on Trump-Russia have claimed to have 10-20 unique sources on their major breaking stories.

So I AM not just making assumptions. I AM, however, taking the word of the reporters. I know both these papers have high journalistic standards. If the story came from either of these papers, REGARDLESS of content, and it wasn't simply an opinion piece, I would examine the assertions, and trust that the story was well-sourced on those assertions.

High journalistic standards? Not always...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_controversies

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/188814/the-correction

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2016/11/11/new-york-times-we-blew-it-on-trump/amp/
(Interesting snip from the srory...bold is mine)
While insisting his staff had “reported on both candidates fairly,” he also vowed that the paper would “rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor.”

Ah, there’s the rub. Had the paper actually been fair to both candidates, it wouldn’t need to rededicate itself to honest reporting. And it wouldn’t have been totally blindsided by Trump’s victory.

Instead, because it demonized Trump from start to finish, it failed to realize he was onto something. And because the paper decided that Trump’s supporters were a rabble of racist rednecks and homophobes, it DIDNT HAVE A CLUE about what was happening in the lives of the Americans who elected the new president.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2017/01/01/fake-news-and-how-the-washington-post-rewrote-its-story-on-russian-hacking-of-the-power-grid/amp/

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.dailycaller.com/2017/01/03/three-bungled-stories-on-russian-election-hacks-all-demonstrate-the-same-big-mistakes/
(Interesting paragraph from the story) The Washington Post’s three big stories on Russian meddling in recent weeks all appear to shirk basic reporting standards, in one case forcing editors to issue an embarrassing correction, and in another to fend off a potential defamation lawsuit.

Jeff Bezos, the owner of the Post, is Amazon's chief executive and biggest shareholder. Amazon has secured a 600 million dollar contract with the CIA, which poses a potential conflict. Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said, "It's a serious potential conflict of interest for a major newspaper like The Washington Post to have a contractual relationship with the government and the most secret part of the government."

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

FR

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/opinion/white-house/365393-how-quickly-ny-times-forgets-obamas-lies-and-frauds%3famp

Obama
Hillary Clinton
Susan Rice
L. Todd Wood
Eric Holder
Lois Lerner
Kathleen Sebelius
Lisa Jackson
etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
It lists some spinning about the NSA (the program that Bushstarted),

quote:

Originating as a unit to decipher coded communications in World War II, it was officially formed as the NSA by President Harry S. Truman in 1952.

quote:

and the infamous "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor", which was actually technically 100% true. (Albeit misleading)
There is nothing in the ACA that says you have to switch doctors.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
It lists some spinning about the NSA (the program that Bushstarted),

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency

quote:

Originating as a unit to decipher coded communications in World War II, it was officially formed as the NSA by President Harry S. Truman in 1952.

Exactly which Bush were you talking about?

quote:

quote:

and the infamous "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor", which was actually technically 100% true. (Albeit misleading)
There is nothing in the ACA that says you have to switch doctors.

Semantics. When the ACA forces insurance plan changes, you don't necessarily get to keep your plan, if you like your healthcare plan (another claim). When changes due to the ACA result in your doctor no longer accepting your insurance plan (whether that's the doctor's choice or the practice's), unless a person is independently wealthy enough to pay their own way, switching doctors is, in fact, due to the ACA.

But, politicians of any stripe will say damn near anything to get their way, honest truth be damned.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
It lists some spinning about the NSA (the program that Bushstarted),

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency

quote:

Originating as a unit to decipher coded communications in World War II, it was officially formed as the NSA by President Harry S. Truman in 1952.

Exactly which Bush were you talking about?

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I didn't mean that Bush started the NSA. I meant the program to capture audio from citizens cell phones. And that would be GWB,

quote:

quote:

quote:

and the infamous "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor", which was actually technically 100% true. (Albeit misleading)
There is nothing in the ACA that says you have to switch doctors.

Semantics. When the ACA forces insurance plan changes, you don't necessarily get to keep your plan, if you like your healthcare plan (another claim). When changes due to the ACA result in your doctor no longer accepting your insurance plan (whether that's the doctor's choice or the practice's), unless a person is independently wealthy enough to pay their own way, switching doctors is, in fact, due to the ACA.
But, politicians of any stripe will say damn near anything to get their way, honest truth be damned.

Technically, the ACA doesn't FORCE anything. Plans start and stop all the time, with or without the ACA. Furthermore, if a plan is no longer certified to meet the ACA mandate (which I think is what you meant), there is nothing the ACA does to FORCE it not to exist.
Also, on the provider side: At the end of the day, it is the Provider's choice as to what insurance he/she will accept. There is nothing in the ACA that is prescriptive in this area. In fact, a provider is free to accept non-certified plans.
It is a bit of a semantic argument. But Obama's comments, strictly in the context of the ACA, were 100% true, albeit extremely misleading.
A far more descriptive and accurate set of comments might have been:
"Although, the ACA does nothing to mandate any change in your plan or your doctor... If you have a plan that does not meet the basic requirements of the mandate, it is likely that your insurance company will either cancel or modify your plan, which in turn can result in your doctor no longer being in your network"
Just saying.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The GOP believes it will help spur the economy, which will help improve tax revenues. The Bush tax cuts did that. Sure, the immediate effect was a reduction in revenues, but the longer term effect was an increase in revenues.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The GOP believes it will help spur the economy, which will help improve tax revenues. The Bush tax cuts did that. Sure, the immediate effect was a reduction in revenues, but the longer term effect was an increase in revenues.

This is an example of what we called, in my Economics 101 class in college, the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
That is a wild guess fueled by your own beliefs.
No one can prove that the Bush tax cuts improved revenues. Revenues improved as the economy improved. The economy tanked after the tax cuts.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The GOP believes it will help spur the economy, which will help improve tax revenues. The Bush tax cuts did that. Sure, the immediate effect was a reduction in revenues, but the longer term effect was an increase in revenues.

This is an example of what we called, in my Economics 101 class in college, the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
That is a wild guess fueled by your own beliefs.
No one can prove that the Bush tax cuts improved revenues. Revenues improved as the economy improved. The economy tanked after the tax cuts.

No, the economy was already starting to tank in 2000 with the Tech Bubble burst. Then there was 9/11 which also helped tank the economy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
None of this contradicts the following 3 sentences:
1. No one can prove that the Bush tax cuts improved revenues.
2. Revenues improved as the economy improved.
3. The economy tanked after the tax cuts. (Whether or not one could accurately assert the the economy tanked before the tax cuts as well)

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
None of this contradicts the following 3 sentences:
1. No one can prove that the Bush tax cuts improved revenues.
2. Revenues improved as the economy improved.
3. The economy tanked after the tax cuts. (Whether or not one could accurately assert the the economy tanked before the tax cuts as well)

1. Tax cuts improved after the tax cuts.
2. The economy improved after the tax cuts.
3. The economy was already going down before the cuts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
None of this contradicts the following 3 sentences:
1. No one can prove that the Bush tax cuts improved revenues.
2. Revenues improved as the economy improved.
3. The economy tanked after the tax cuts. (Whether or not one could accurately assert the the economy tanked before the tax cuts as well)

1. Tax cuts improved after the tax cuts.
2. The economy improved after the tax cuts.
3. The economy was already going down before the cuts.

1. Tax cuts improved after tax cuts? What?
2. The economy also tanked after tax cuts. So? More Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
3. Not necessarily.

quote:

The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began. The expansion lasted exactly 10 years, the longest in the NBER's chronology

[Bold & Italics Mine]

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
None of this contradicts the following 3 sentences:
1. No one can prove that the Bush tax cuts improved revenues.
2. Revenues improved as the economy improved.
3. The economy tanked after the tax cuts. (Whether or not one could accurately assert the the economy tanked before the tax cuts as well)

1. Tax cuts improved after the tax cuts.
2. The economy improved after the tax cuts.
3. The economy was already going down before the cuts.

1. Tax cuts improved after tax cuts? What?
2. The economy also tanked after tax cuts. So? More Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
3. Not necessarily.

1. Tax Revenues improved after the tax cuts. (my error (obviously))
2. The economy improved after the tax cuts, and continued to improve after the majority of the tax cuts were made permanent.
3. It was already going down. It's not a "not necessarily" situation.

https://www.nber.org/cycles/november2001/

quote:

The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began. The expansion lasted exactly 10 years, the longest in the NBER's chronology

[Bold & Italics Mine]

The Bush Tax cuts weren't introduced to Congress until May 2001, 2 months after the recessionary period started. So, yes, the economy was already contracting before the tax cuts were passed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
None of this contradicts the following 3 sentences:
1. No one can prove that the Bush tax cuts improved revenues.
2. Revenues improved as the economy improved.
3. The economy tanked after the tax cuts. (Whether or not one could accurately assert the the economy tanked before the tax cuts as well)

1. Tax cuts improved after the tax cuts.
2. The economy improved after the tax cuts.
3. The economy was already going down before the cuts.

1. Tax cuts improved after tax cuts? What?
2. The economy also tanked after tax cuts. So? More Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
3. Not necessarily.

1. Tax Revenues improved after the tax cuts. (my error (obviously))
2. The economy improved after the tax cuts, and continued to improve after the majority of the tax cuts were made permanent.
3. It was already going down. It's not a "not necessarily" situation.
https://www.nber.org/cycles/november2001/

quote:

The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began. The expansion lasted exactly 10 years, the longest in the NBER's chronology

[Bold & Italics Mine]

The Bush Tax cuts weren't introduced to Congress until May 2001, 2 months after the recessionary period started. So, yes, the economy was already contracting before the tax cuts were passed.

None of this proves anything at all.

quote:

But
FWIW
1. Tax Revenues improved after the tax cuts. (my error (obviously)) - Nope.
From
https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762
FY 2004 - $1.88 trillion.
FY 2003 - $1.72 trillion.
FY 2002 - $1.85 trillion.
FY 2001 - $1.99 trilion.
FY 2000 - $2.03 trillion.

quote:

2. The economy improved after the tax cuts, and continued to improve after the majority of the tax cuts were made permanent. - This could be due to a plethora of factors. We also went into a major recession after the tax cuts.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:


But
FWIW
1. Tax Revenues improved after the tax cuts. (my error (obviously)) - Nope.
From
https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762
FY 2004 - $1.88 trillion.
FY 2003 - $1.72 trillion.
FY 2002 - $1.85 trillion.
FY 2001 - $1.99 trilion.
FY 2000 - $2.03 trillion.

Keep going. What was it in 2005-2009? Gotta give it some time to work, no?

quote:

quote:

2. The economy improved after the tax cuts, and continued to improve after the majority of the tax cuts were made permanent. - This could be due to a plethora of factors. We also went into a major recession after the tax cuts.

Unless you're prepared to explain the tax cuts causing the housing bubble to burst, I'm not sure what the Great Recession has to do with it.