The Associated Press Goes to Bat For the Democratic Party

[Master PO]

If 70% of the public blame republicans for the shut down, then it stands to reason that those who don't are the ones who are astonishingly myopic.

as always i wonder where these numbers come from, NY, LA , or MOOSE JAW, ALASKA.

 

[pbrauer]

This is astonishingly myopic.

Are you saying that a disagreement exists because only one side refuses to negotiate?

Who is it that is refusing? Hint: It's obama and the Democrats and it's exactly what they've been doing since the first obama election win.

Obama to GOP: 'I won' - Jonathan Martin and Carol E. Lee - POLITICO.com

President Obama says he will negotiate, but not while there are threats.

 

[Moot]

How many of your claimed 70% know the truth, outside of what the media tells them?

Well, if the rightwing media is just blaming democrats and the MSM is blaming both sides...but 70% of the public are blaming just Republicans...then it stands to reason the public doesnt believe everything they read or see on TV.

 

[Moot]

all as always i wonder where these numbers come from, NY, LA , or MOOSE JAW, ALASKA.

Try googling "Real Politics polls". Real Politics posts all the polls and then averages them out which gives a more accurate reading of public opinon....imo.

 

[Master PO]

president obama says he will negotiate, but not while there are threats.

if obama wants something, and the republicans want something, .

And for obama to negotiate, the republicans must do something first, then what compels obama to do his something for the republicans, .......since the republicans would have to meet obama's something before any negotiations would take place?


Crazy wording i know, however its context is correct.

 

[Master PO]

Try googling "Real Politics polls". Real Politics posts all the polls and then averages them out which gives a more accurate reading of public opinon....imo.

well the question is do they do they polls in large cities, more prone to social ideas, or are they across the nations in all areas.

because many times they say a poll is in one direction however in my job, and the many people i have to deal with every day, the people do not concur with the poll data.

 

[pbrauer]

if obama wants something, and the republicans want something, .

And for obama to negotiate, the republicans must do something first, then what compels obama to do his something for the republicans, .......since the republicans would have to meet obama's something before any negotiations would take place?


Crazy wording i know, however its context is correct.

His word and honor.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

The Associated Press Goes to Bat For the Democratic Party | Power Line

but the left will never admit there is a media bias and or that it effects elections, policy and creates a false perception
they will even go as far as saying the right leaning news organizations the very few there are has more of a influence

its just like a team would never admit they have the refs in their pocket

News sources can only work towwards objectivity, they never actually achieve it. But with that said, as a news hound, I never really saw anything from the AP that made me feel they were pushing some overt agenda, especially n the name of a political party. Can you cite some relevant examples that can shed light on your accusation?

PS from the article: "With the government teetering on the brink of partial shutdown, congressional Republicans vowed Sunday to keep using an otherwise routine federal funding bill to try to attack the president’s health care law"

Do the republicans even deny this? Because it's pretty obvious that is what strategy they are employing. If that strategy is justified as a means of the minority pursuing interest, or even more specifically if their plan to attack the ACA is, is another matter entirely. But all the AP is doing here is highlighting what that strategy is, without judging it. And if you think that amounts to passing judgement , then please explain what would have been proper wording here

 

[Master PO]

His word and honor.

his word and honor?.......you must have faith then.

becuase i have no faith in any of them, including the republicans.

 

[Lord of Planar]

President Obama says he will negotiate, but not while there are threats.

That's doublespeak for saying he will not negotiate.

The press and libtards buy into it too...

 

[Lord of Planar]

if obama wants something, and the republicans want something, .

And for obama to negotiate, the republicans must do something first, then what compels obama to do his something for the republicans, .......since the republicans would have to meet obama's something before any negotiations would take place?


Crazy wording i know, however its context is correct.

Yes, isn't that odd?

definition: Obama will negotiate after the republicans cave in...

 

[mak2]

Yea. if this was 1965 that might have been a good point. Way too late for baby steps, time for an overhaul.

That's an excellent example of a wrong that needed to be righted.

Another is the group of folks with pre-existing conditions that could not get insurance.

We already have a model for the cure for these particular maladies: Flood insurance. Why not just look at the particular people who have the particular problem and rectify that problem instead of blowing the whole system up?

That would have been a good start. Baby steps. The folks who are dropping the ball in every way on every thing would have had a less spectacular failure if they had a smaller range of responsibilities to fail in.

 

[Moot]

well the question is do they do they polls in large cities, more prone to social ideas, or are they across the nations in all areas.

because many times they say a poll is in one direction however in my job, and the many people i have to deal with every day, the people do not concur with the poll data.

You'd have to read who did the polls and find out. There are lots of organizations that do polls. But if you go to their websites, they will tell you exactly how they conducted polls and their methodoligy. I think you can link to each polls website from Real Clear Politics, too.

But you're absolutely right to be skeptical and thats why I suggested going to RCP where they take all the different poll results and then find an average...which IMO gives a more accurate reading...if there is a such thing. It is interesting because some polls don't call cell phones, some use the internet, and some use a combination or all methods of polling. So it just depends on their methodiolgy and demographics...and their reputation for accuracy.


RealClearPolitics - Latest Polls

 

[mpg]

If 70% of the public blame republicans for the shut down, then it stands to reason that those who don't are the ones who are astonishingly myopic.

Which reason are you referring to?

 

[Moot]

Which reason are you referring to?

The one with logic.

 

[mpg]

The one with logic.

Could you narrow it down to something smaller than infinity?

 

[trfjr]

News sources can only work towwards objectivity, they never actually achieve it. But with that said, as a news hound, I never really saw anything from the AP that made me feel they were pushing some overt agenda, especially n the name of a political party. Can you cite some relevant examples that can shed light on your accusation?

PS from the article: "With the government teetering on the brink of partial shutdown, congressional Republicans vowed Sunday to keep using an otherwise routine federal funding bill to try to attack the president’s health care law"

Do the republicans even deny this? Because it's pretty obvious that is what strategy they are employing. If that strategy is justified as a means of the minority pursuing interest, or even more specifically if their plan to attack the ACA is, is another matter entirely. But all the AP is doing here is highlighting what that strategy is, without judging it. And if you think that amounts to passing judgement , then please explain what would have been proper wording here

Its not always what they say but how they say it or what they wont say I will use your very example to explain

"With the government teetering on the brink of partial shutdown, congressional Republicans vowed Sunday to keep using an otherwise routine federal funding bill to try to attack the president’s health care law"
"using an otherwise routine federal funding bill" it has been routine for other agendas being attached to CRs it has been done 27 times in the last 30 years
what APs attempt was by adding the "otherwise routine federal funding bill" was to portray Republicans doing something with no presidence when the opposite is true 27 times true what is unpresidence is Obama refusal to negotiate

"try to attack the president’s health care law"

Attack? would repeal or delay be more of an honest description why use the word "attack" because attack makes it sound like as an aggressive harmful action

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

"using an otherwise routine federal funding bill" it has been routine for other agendas being attached to CRs it has been done 27 times in the last 30 years

I don't really understand what you're trying to say. Funding bills are generally routine, current circumstances are not. hence, an otherwise routine funding bill.

Honest question, how do you think it should have been worded

what APs attempt was by adding the "otherwise routine federal funding bill" was to portray Republicans doing something with no presidence

No, it means it was outside the general routine of a funding bill. And occurring 27 times out of the entirety of the number of funding bills that have gone throgh congress really doesn't change thast. It just means routine was broken 27 times

Attack? would repeal or delay be more of an honest description why use the word "attack" because attack makes it sound like as an aggressive harmful action

well, if your the ACA, it is an "an aggressive harmful action" ... And I'm pretty sure that was the entire intent. If that is a good or bad thing is another matter entirely, but given the general view of the republican power brockers, leveling "an aggressive and harmful attack" on the ACA would be a good thing, since it's legislation they clearly do not like

 

[trfjr]

I don't really understand what you're trying to say. Funding bills are generally routine, current circumstances are not. hence, an otherwise routine funding bill.

Honest question, how do you think it should have been worded




No, it means it was outside the general routine of a funding bill. And occurring 27 times out of the entirety of the number of funding bills that have gone throgh congress really doesn't change thast. It just means routine was broken 27 times




well, if your the ACA, it is an "an aggressive harmful action" ... And I'm pretty sure that was the entire intent. If that is a good or bad thing is another matter entirely, but given the general view of the republican power brockers, leveling "an aggressive and harmful attack" on the ACA would be a good thing, since it's legislation they clearly do not like

attaching other agendas to CR bills is routine 27 times routine what is not routine is having a president not negotiate

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

attaching other agendas to CR bills is routine 27 times routine what is not routine is having a president not negotiate

there were 21 CR bills in 2001 alone. So 27 times doesn't strike me as a substantial enough number to consider it routine

 

[code1211]

If 70% of the public blame republicans for the shut down, then it stands to reason that those who don't are the ones who are astonishingly myopic.

When a parent says, "No more candy, you'll ruin your dinner", the parent is not too popular.

This is just a little adult supervision in the playpen for the first time in about 13 years.

If the Democrats had not been stonewalling and neglecting their duties and responsibilities in favor of partisan hackery and political maneuvering, none of this would have been possible.

Another year passes with no budget.

If I'm Boehner, I'm following Obama's lead and shutting my door until someone comes around to pay homage. The constitution makes the Speaker of the House a very powerful position for a reason.

 

[code1211]

Yea. if this was 1965 that might have been a good point. Way too late for baby steps, time for an overhaul.

The problem is that the government is shown time after time to be exactly what it is: An inefficient and often dishonest, very large, unaccountable gang of back stabbing beaurocrats who have but one goal in life and that is to get as much as possible for as little effort as possible.

The web site that doesn't work and that cost almost 7 times the budget to get it up and running is just the tip of the Ice Berg. This, like anything else the government touches, is a train wreck. The government should do only those things that private industry cannot.

It may need an overhaul, but this process of creating an overhaul is a disaster in the making that will cost literally trillions to finance and will collapse under its own weight. We have only the part that should be easy and has to occur before anything else can occur and we are already 674% over budget. The budget for this whole abortion is just under a trillion dollars. Get ready for 700 Trillion in the toilet.

If morons were running this, we'd be better off. Sadly the Democrats in charge cannot measure up to that standard.