MMFA and Impeachment
My first post on how MMFA distorts...it doesn't really compare to some of the more significant moments in life--graduating from college, getting your first job, getting married, buying a house, etc...but it still may have some significance. We'll have to see what the site looks like in a year to determine that I suppose. In any case, although MMFA mission claims to be monitoring conservative misinformation, it seems greatly in favor of impeachment charges against President Bush (or King George as Katrina VH likes to call him). Thus, we will be looking at one part of the following MMFA post
From that post: "As Media Matters also noted, in that same column, Milbank depicted advocates of impeachment as a fringe element of the Democratic Party -- which he said is in one of its "periodic splits between pragmatism and symbolism" -- while ignoring polling that has shown that a majority of respondents believes Congress should consider impeaching Bush over his authorization of warrantless domestic surveillance. Moreover, as Media Matters previously noted, a poll from November 2005 found that 53 percent of Americans thought that Congress should consider impeachment "[i]f President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq."
1) Advocates of impeachment do not equal Considerers of impeachment. People who agreed with the statement "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment." do not necessarily believe that Bush should be impeached. They only think it should be considered. That might be why when a more direct question is asked "Should President Bush be Impeached and Removed from Office?" only 32% say Yes as compared to 58% No link here. So I would say Milbank was correct when he depicted impeachment advocates as a fringe element (although 32% is still a very high fringe)..
2) That statement is a conditional probability statement which beings "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons...." Thus, for the conclusion to be reached (impeachment considered...NOT impeachment definitely happening), the first part of that statement must be true. As of yet, I have not seen any evidence which showed that Bush definitively knew beyond a reasonable doubt beforehand that Iraq did not possess any WMD's or did not have the intent to acquire WMD's.
3) Regarding the poll for considering impeachment regarding warrantless wiretaps on Americans, re-read #1. The poll has the same faulty wording "consider impeachment" and gives the impression of wiretapping between two average American citizens, whereas most (if not all) wiretapping was done with 1 American citizen and 1 Al-Qaeda representative (assuming 2 people on the phone call).
From that post: "As Media Matters also noted, in that same column, Milbank depicted advocates of impeachment as a fringe element of the Democratic Party -- which he said is in one of its "periodic splits between pragmatism and symbolism" -- while ignoring polling that has shown that a majority of respondents believes Congress should consider impeaching Bush over his authorization of warrantless domestic surveillance. Moreover, as Media Matters previously noted, a poll from November 2005 found that 53 percent of Americans thought that Congress should consider impeachment "[i]f President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq."
1) Advocates of impeachment do not equal Considerers of impeachment. People who agreed with the statement "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment." do not necessarily believe that Bush should be impeached. They only think it should be considered. That might be why when a more direct question is asked "Should President Bush be Impeached and Removed from Office?" only 32% say Yes as compared to 58% No link here. So I would say Milbank was correct when he depicted impeachment advocates as a fringe element (although 32% is still a very high fringe)..
2) That statement is a conditional probability statement which beings "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons...." Thus, for the conclusion to be reached (impeachment considered...NOT impeachment definitely happening), the first part of that statement must be true. As of yet, I have not seen any evidence which showed that Bush definitively knew beyond a reasonable doubt beforehand that Iraq did not possess any WMD's or did not have the intent to acquire WMD's.
3) Regarding the poll for considering impeachment regarding warrantless wiretaps on Americans, re-read #1. The poll has the same faulty wording "consider impeachment" and gives the impression of wiretapping between two average American citizens, whereas most (if not all) wiretapping was done with 1 American citizen and 1 Al-Qaeda representative (assuming 2 people on the phone call).
posted by Truth Matters at 2:01 PM
4 Comments:
Because it was a ridiculous spelling mistake that wasn't even a typo. if you had typed "disfust" or "disvust" or disbust" I could be more understanding because all those letters "f,v,b" are right next to g and you might have hit them by accident. But you instead typed a "c". Where you thinking of the word "discussed?"
"There is no connection between spelling and intelligence."
Whew...Glad you cleared that one up.
"Have you ever made a spelling error in haste?"
No, not as bad as the one you made because I re-read anything I type before publication and again after publication (unlike you).
And the reason I called you a moron was partly due to your post left on Alan Skorski's blog in addition to your terrible spelling.
"Why do you use the comment moderation thingy? Why do you have to approve comments before they are posted? Are you sanitizing your audience? "
The reason I am using comment moderation is so that after the MMFA lemmings find out about my site they will not be able to leave numerous slanderous, false, vile comments at will. You left the first 2 comments I've gotten, so nothing has been sanitized so far.
Mary,
I called you a moron, not just because of the spelling/typographical errors (Yes, you actually typed discust 2 times in that post!!) but also because of things listed in your post including the following:
"They bend the truth where they see fit to benefit their fearless leaders of war and corperate greed."
Do you have any proof of this?? Can you give at least 1 example to back up your crazy assertion?
"They get many of their facts from the Heritage Foundation."
So, what???? What is wrong with the Heritage Foundation?
"I'm Rush Limbaugh...... Talent on loan from God."
I have never heard Rush say that but if you provide me with a transcript then I will believe you..Until then, you are making something up.
"Do you think that God wants us to be at war? Do you think that God wants us to neglect our poor? Do you think that God wants a man to be president who is cutting spending on education, healthcare, and the environment?"
Who cares?? God isn't the one making policy decisions. Some of us try to make decisions/beliefs according to His word, but that isn't always the only reason behind a decision. And you are false when you say that spending on education, healthcare and the environment is being cut. Flat out false.
"Rush and O'Reilly love the President and all that he does against the least of ours."
Have you ever watched O'Reilly's show?? Have you ever seen a segment on the Mexican Border & illegal immigration?? Apprarently not, because he has hammered Bush on that subject for the last 4 years...
"We live in the wealthiest nation in the world, yet we have people who can not afford healthcare....people without homes..... children who can't afford a college education."
Ok, so, what is your point??
So to summarize the reasons I called you a moron are as follows:
1) misspelling of the word "disgust" as "discust" 2 times (yes, you somehow managed to type the same wrong spelling twice!!!)
2) You make false statements about Rush Limbaugh (twice) & Bill O'Reilly (twice) without offering any facts to back them up (remember the blog/book is about Al Franken)
3) You make false claims about the President's spending.
4) You ask about God's opinion on specific policy issues. Who the heck knows what he thinks? What relevance at all does this have to Alan Skorski's book??
So those are my reasons for calling you a moron. If you find anything on my website that is not backed up with facts or any false assertions you may feel free to reciprocate.
Mary,
"Do a yahoo search that says, "Rush Limbaugh talent on loan from God."
It's not my job to find a transcript to back up your assertion. I don't have the time to waste proving claims that you make.
"He is quite arrogant and my point"
Ok, great. This has absolutely nothing at all to do with Alan's book on Al Franken
"When I get time, I may post you again with some proof that you so desire, but I'm really not that into debating with someone who uses name calling as a debate tactic."
Until you actually post some proof to back up your ridiculous and false claims, in my book you are a moron for that reason.
I'll have an open debate about any topic at any time. But if people continue to say false things or to change the subject of what is being debated because they are losing the debate then I will call them as such. My job wasn't really to "influence" you Mary about a certain issue/idea, it was to point out that you made numerous claims which were either false, unsupported with any evidence, or completely irrelevant to the Al Franken book.
regarding your second post:
"This makes me wonder what other sorts of bent studies they are performing at the Heritage Foundation."
Perhaps you could cite just 1 of them studies and then we could see if they are scientifically & mathematically accurate.
"I'm very frightened for my children's future on this planet."
I am very frightened that people like you & Al Franken may start running the country..
"Do you have children? Wouldn't you like them to have a clean place to grow up and raise their own children in?"
No, I don't have children. Yes, I would like them to grow up in a clean place. I think the country is pretty clean right now as it is. Maybe I live in a better area than you do though.
Post a Comment
<< Home