Lawrence O'Donnell responds to AP's claim that Ron Paul fly's first class on government dime.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

Romney - 33.1%
Gingrich - 18.3%
Santorum - 14.6%
Paul - 14.1%
Perry - 6.1%

Now if I'm looking at that and I'm a rabid Obama supporter, I might think that anything that benefits Ron Paul would help Obama.

Only if you aren't thinking ahead. Think about all the supporters for Gingrich, Santorum, and Perry. People support those guys because they are not Romney. When those guys start dropping out, one by one, most of their supporters will go to Ron Paul. The same would hold true for any of them. Romney has no chance because he's never going to gain those other supporters.

reply to post by eLPresidente

Romney can't beat Obama.

Correct, Romney doesn't have a chance in hell of beating Obama. The GOP seems to want to shoot itself in the foot.

They have a chance to nominate someone who would be one of the greatest Presidents in America's history, but instead they'll nominate Romney.

Can't fix stupid.


Edit: Those poll numbers are fabricated BS.

reply to post by Cuervo


You are assuming they will flip to Paul? Why? Ron Paul's views are not mainstream Conservative views by any stretch of the imagination. His views on the Federal Reserve are becoming mainstream, but many of his other views are not even close. It's not what a Ron Paul supporter thinks, it's what everyone else thinks.

We will all know one way or the other in a few months. This has gone off topic here. I simply suggested that a rabid Progressive from MSNBC might see anything that helps Paul as being helpful to Obama and I don't think that is an odd idea at all. I don't know it for a fact, it was just a thought.

reply to post by Blaine91555


yes yes....

But we're not talking about the average Obama supporter.

We're talking about Lawrence O'Donnell, are we not? He has now exhibited positive and negative behavior towards Ron Paul (leans way more to the negative). So with that information, how can we come to the conclusion that he is praising Ron Paul (on a liberal station) to set him up to lose against Obama? Their viewers are more liberal after all.

Originally posted by calnorak
reply to post by sealing

 

www.good.is...

Here's the exact quote, taped on a conservative cruise to the Mediterranean in 2009: "Last year, candidate Barack Obama stood on a sidewalk in Toledo, Ohio, and first let it slip to Joe the Plumber that he wanted to quote, 'spread the wealth around.' At that time, I have to admit, that I went on TV on Fox News and publicly engaged in what I guess was some rather mischievous speculation about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism, a premise that privately I found rather far-fetched."

Did you even read that article? Mischievous speculation is not lying, admittedly its not what you would want in journalism. Even though he found it far fetched he went with it. If I heard someone say they wanted to spread the wealth around, I'd think socialist/communist, so its definitely not lying, spin it is.

That's sad. And yes I read the article and gave you a star for a good post.
"Mischievous Speculation" is to lying what "Enhanced Interrogation" is to Torture.





It's always just short of out in out corpocracy . Always hangs by some
Rove enhanced viewpoint. Fox knows it's audience well, Do you believe
that reporting mischevious speculation vs lying about the President
was a nuance picked up by their viewers ?

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by Cuervo

 

You are assuming they will flip to Paul? Why? Ron Paul's views are not mainstream Conservative views by any stretch of the imagination. His views on the Federal Reserve are becoming mainstream, but many of his other views are not even close. It's not what a Ron Paul supporter thinks, it's what everyone else thinks.

We will all know one way or the other in a few months. This has gone off topic here. I simply suggested that a rabid Progressive from MSNBC might see anything that helps Paul as being helpful to Obama and I don't think that is an odd idea at all. I don't know it for a fact, it was just a thought.

It's because there are two major camps in the non-RP GOP voter pool:

1 - The ones who just want Obama to lose so they vote for Romney.

2 - The ones who don't like Romney because he pretty much is Obama so they are voting for Gingrich, Santorum, and Perry.

The people in #2 will flop on to RP because they view Romney as a progressive tool. Romney has gotten all the supporters he's going to get. The rest will consolidate and support a candidate who will beat Romney. Basically, whoever is the last man standing next to Romney will win the primary.

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
reply to post by sealing

 

I am going to analyze the "Fox Lies" outlined on the site that you linked to: www.newscorpse.com...

First one: says Fox is telling a lie by saying Obama associated with Marxists in college.
Fact: This is a quote from Obama's own book, in his own words: "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," Obama wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists." So from Obama's own words, he was attracted to the Marxist professors. Sounds like Obama DID associate with Marxists in college to me. Not a lie.

Second one: about "Obama's Christmas Tree Tax." I actually first heard about this news story on my local radio station's news, not Fox. They called it a Christmas Tree Tax, too. Even ABC referred to it as a Christmas Tree Tax.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is going to delay implementation and revisit a proposed new 15 cent fee on fresh-cut Christmas trees, sources tell ABC News.

(from ABC news website abcnews.go.com...). Here's another take on the same story, from the Wall Street Journal:

The problem isn't so much a "tax" that would theoretically apply to the 17 million Christmas trees that will be sold this season. It's that the government would help to sell this yuletide staple at all—not to mention cotton, honey, softwood lumber, raspberries, peanuts, mangos and many others. This was merely another corporate welfare present wrapped with government ribbon.

online.wsj.com... I judge that one spin, not a lie.

Third one: The article criticizes this headline from Fox saying Obama wasn't doing well in Ohio ("Ugly for Obama in Ohio"), and says that the poll showed that Obama was outpolling the Republican candidates, so the article claims that headline was misleading. But when you look at the actual poll linked to the article, the poll says this:

President Barack Obama's job approval rating and re-elect numbers remain underwater among Ohio voters, who disapprove 51 - 43 percent and say 49 - 44 percent the president does not deserve a second term, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.

That actually DOES support Fox's headline...so this one is definitely NOT a lie. www.quinnipiac.edu...

Fourth one: The headline says that stocks fell after Obama's speech. The article says this:

The implication, of course, is that Obama’s speech had something to do with the stocks tumbling. However, despite the deceptive headline, the article states that it is actually the “speculation congress won’t pass” the President’s proposals that contributed to the market decline.

So by the critical-of-Fox-article's own admission, the actal Fox article DID specify it is the "speculation congress won't pass" the proposal that caused the stocks to fall. Since this occurred AFTER an Obama speech, the headline is not a lie...simply spin. If anyone had read the Fox article that was being criticized, you would have seen that. Not a lie...spin.

Fifth one: I can't analyze that one, because I can't find the original NYT article they are talking about.

Sixth one: "Obama copies Palin, Plans Bus Tour". Also spin. He did a bus tour right after Sarah Palin did one. Doesn't sound like a lie, as we all remember that bus tour. I wonder if he would have done one at that time had Sarah Palin not just done one?

I could go on, but I've got to go.

Listen, this guy (in his "Fox lies" article) is guilty of doing the SAME thing Fox is doing with their headlines. He's spinning the news stories to make the sensational claim that Fox is lying. I can't find ONE SINGLE THING that Fox has said that is a lie, as he is claiming. All of these headlines he criticizes are sensational, yes, but when you read further, you get what they are saying, and it is never a lie...simply spin.

It reminds me of some newspaper article I saw posted on FB that said something along the lines of "Lawmakers Appalled at the size of Obama's Package." Definitely a play on words, and some people could misinterpret the headline...but it doesn't make it a lie.

SO....in summary...just because this dude has written an article saying Fox is lying, with examples, when you look at the examples, they don't appear to be lies but are simply spinning the information in their headlines.

I went through every one of these articles
and came to the exact opposite of what you did .
Oh well

reply to post by eLPresidente


Perhaps we cannot. We've talked this to death and now it's just trying to have the last word.

reply to post by Cuervo


We could debate that all day and gain nothing from it. We will see what happens shortly and end the debate. Paul threads have become like bubblegum music, the same lyrics over and over again endlessly. At least the Elenin and Niburu Bubblegum threads are gone.

I don't care what this guy thinks of Ron Paul. I applaud him for honest reporting.
Thanks eP. Great find!

Lawrence O'Donnell says he was about to come out with the story (AP's version) but their investigative team first gave a call to Ron Paul's office (DUH, JOURNALISM...AP, WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?).

reply to post by eLPresidente


It's surprising how truth in journalism happens when reporters investigate and check facts before publishing or reporting a story. I mean isn't this journalism 101? Today it's be the first to get the story out and worry about getting the facts later. Or, turn the facts so it supports a bias agenda. Journalism isn't like it used to be.

reply to post by eLPresidente


An altruistic politician is about as reasonable as a vegetarian great white shark.

So what if he flies first class or not! That's minuscule chickenfeed in comparison to what the government flushes down the toilet daily.

reply to post by sealing


Yes. You should. There's no FACTS in your post.
2nd.
3rd. Are you an Obama fan?

With no intent to hijack the thread (I like O'Donnell, at least in small doses) it seems that we have all been nuanced away from a falsehood by providing various levels of it. "Spin" is the latest however it is still prevarication for the purpose of manipulation.

Innuendo, half-truths, and omission of pertinent information and facts is simply a subtle form of "lying" as it is still meant to create falsehood. It gives an illusion of truth that requires one to look past the misdirection to glean the complete truth or at least come closer to it.

Unfortunately, most people have neither the time nor the inclination to analyze sound bites, articles and news casts, present company excepted. Spinning is simply an illusion of the truth wrapped in opinion and stated in such a fashion to provide only enough information to sway or manipulate others. Like propaganda.

Lying. With style.

"fly's" ?

....Really?

Originally posted by solarstorm
How about going after the Botox queen Nancy Piglosi in her air travels. Start there before going after Ron Paul.

Doesn't she have her own 757 on the government dime or something? Not TOO extravagant, queen Nancy...

I guess it's cool because she's not running for President. I think she's running from the grim reaper under all that plastic surgery, though.

This is why I sometimes hate the professional world.

Its like a bunch of big babys.

Ron Paul should not be president. He isnt fit. He even flies on a jet first class on the governments money. Not to include the fact that movie stars and sports stars get the same treatment.

This is petty stuff honestly. Like a big lion crying when theres a thorn in their paw. Really?

Originally posted by Soulece
This is why I sometimes hate the professional world.

Its like a bunch of big babys.

Ron Paul should not be president. He isnt fit. He even flies on a jet first class on the governments money. Not to include the fact that movie stars and sports stars get the same treatment.

This is petty stuff honestly. Like a big lion crying when theres a thorn in their paw. Really?

You just completely discredited yourself.

The whole premise of this thread is the EXACT OPPOSITE of your insinuations and ignorance.

Hell, its in the title, in the video and I even posted a summary for anybody too lazy or stupid to read the title or watch the video.


Maybe you could work for the Associated Press.