Palin vs. Obama -- Side By Side Comparison
- Thread starter Jill
- Start date
Help Support Miniature Horse Talk Forums:
laughingllama75
Well-Known Member
OhHorsePee
Well-Known Member
Bassett
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2006
- Messages
- 1,729
- Reaction score
- 0
Thanks Jill. Great comparisons. You are a girl after my own heart. Thank you so much for sharing all the information you find.
Jill
Aspiring Cowgirl
I'm happy you all enjoyed it
LowriseMinis
Well-Known Member
It's great except for the part about it being so clearly biased it's almost comical. Heck, I'd be laughing too if I weren't so concerned over the fact people take it seriously!
Its written by redstate.com for goodness sake. No one has the forsight to think it may be biased just a tad? Sheeesh Just glancing at it I can see several things incorrect. I agree, it would be funny if people didnt actually take it seriously.
**note** I would think the same if written by bluestate.com as well
**note** I would think the same if written by bluestate.com as well
LowriseMinis
Well-Known Member
Is there a bluestate.com? Do they have an equally ridiculous and biased chart? I think we should post both if so, because the TRUTH usually lies somewhere in the middle.
Jill
Aspiring Cowgirl
Ladies --
The information on the chart is all true. Period. It's True. If you don't like the contrast, well..........................
If you want to talk about bias, have you noticed anything LEFT about the majority of the US newspapers; ABC, CBS, and NBC network news; and MSNBC, HLN and CNN "cable" news channels? Which is probably exactly what gives you the "facts" on which you base your opinions.
Thank goodness for Fox News.
Jill
The information on the chart is all true. Period. It's True. If you don't like the contrast, well..........................
If you want to talk about bias, have you noticed anything LEFT about the majority of the US newspapers; ABC, CBS, and NBC network news; and MSNBC, HLN and CNN "cable" news channels? Which is probably exactly what gives you the "facts" on which you base your opinions.
Thank goodness for Fox News.
Jill
Last edited by a moderator:
LowriseMinis
Well-Known Member
I think at least one link was provided proving that at least a portion of the information was not true.
Also, can you explain the relevance of the names as presented? I'll need to check my argumentation book, but I think it falls under some kind of debate fallacy. I want to say red herring but I don't think that's correct.
Also, can you explain the relevance of the names as presented? I'll need to check my argumentation book, but I think it falls under some kind of debate fallacy. I want to say red herring but I don't think that's correct.
Jill
Aspiring Cowgirl
Lowrise, I really don't even understand what if anything you're asking me? Nothing in the chart is hard to read -- you're free to research it all you want.
tagalong
Well-Known Member
As I mentioned on the other thread - no - the serious facts on that chart are not all true. And they are easy to verify instead of just accepting it at face value.
A so-called factual chart that describes Palin as smoking hot in a naughty librarian sort of way
And contrary to the chart Obama is actually good at speaking freely without a teleprompter... I may have other issues with him - but he can be a very gifted speaker.
So no - this chart is not exactly a factual, detailed point by point comparison - but has some truly snarky and funny stuff included! I like that...
garyo
Well-Known Member
Since all of these political threads are basically rehashing the same things, I guess it doesn't make much difference to which one I post.
A man whom I believe to be very wise once told me: "Dull minds talk about people, average minds discuss events, and great minds, ideas."
After eagerly watching the good Gov. Palin speak last night, it seems as if she is a little short on ideas.
Imagine my surprise when I found that "The Daily Show" and "Fox News" do not use the same writers, as they are both jokes.
But I do have to agree with the chart, she is "smokin hot"
By the way, Ruth says I'm being argumentative and sexist. LOL
She also had to help me with spelling, so maybe I should just stick to talking about people.
Off to Nationals tomorrow, good luck to all.
Gary
A man whom I believe to be very wise once told me: "Dull minds talk about people, average minds discuss events, and great minds, ideas."
After eagerly watching the good Gov. Palin speak last night, it seems as if she is a little short on ideas.
Imagine my surprise when I found that "The Daily Show" and "Fox News" do not use the same writers, as they are both jokes.
But I do have to agree with the chart, she is "smokin hot"
By the way, Ruth says I'm being argumentative and sexist. LOL
She also had to help me with spelling, so maybe I should just stick to talking about people.
Off to Nationals tomorrow, good luck to all.
Gary
LowriseMinis
Well-Known Member
Jill-I'm not sure how I can make my question easier, but let me try. On the chart you posted, what is the point of listing the full names of the candidates?
I believe that we are looking, and possibly comparing apples to oranges, at the names from two very different perspectives. I believe that Jill posted the "chart" which does list the full names of each of the candidates. I don't disagree with this - I had to fill in the same information to VOTE. Is it pertinent to the election what each candidates' middle name is? Nope, but none-the-less, legal information which is public information at this point. If the "chart" listed these names to profoundly exploit the fact that Senator Obama has an ethnic name, then it clearly wasn't in the best of interests.
What I do believe is that Jill posted a chart which she did not compose herself - it does show information, some pertinent some not as much. Are we really going to argue over what IS pertinent? I think that we, as reliable citizens of the US (and for our foreign horsepeople), should do our OWN homework - watch the news, watch the speeches, look at the platforms, etc.... After these things, then make an informed decision, based on what WE have independently found, not what a "chart", talkshow, or other news program advised us to do. Come on people, we are not trained monkeys - we are citizens of a country that allows us the right to make informed choices.
Jill
Aspiring Cowgirl
Thank you, Adam and Cindy!
Adam, that's exactly right. It is up to each person to decide what is and is not important to them. This goes for "the chart" and ALL the information coming at them.
If people applied 1/10th the skepticism to the mainstream media as they do to "the chart", who knows how much wider their eyes could be open.
Lowrise, as I told you previously on another, the full names have as much or as little meaning as you choose to ascribe to them. The names personally mean nothing to me, but maybe the names did to the people who created the chart. Maybe the names will also mean something to many other people. However, I cannot tell you what the names should mean to you.
Adam, that's exactly right. It is up to each person to decide what is and is not important to them. This goes for "the chart" and ALL the information coming at them.
If people applied 1/10th the skepticism to the mainstream media as they do to "the chart", who knows how much wider their eyes could be open.
Lowrise, as I told you previously on another, the full names have as much or as little meaning as you choose to ascribe to them. The names personally mean nothing to me, but maybe the names did to the people who created the chart. Maybe the names will also mean something to many other people. However, I cannot tell you what the names should mean to you.
Last edited by a moderator:
