(Close Window)
Topic: Al Franken stunt ...
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 11, 2009 09:33PM)
Not a big deal, but I just saw this and thought it was neat ... Al Franken demonstrating a memory effect of sorts, in which he draws the 48 contiguous states (nearly) perfectly:

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HfcrqXtxOM[/url]

[url]http://www.adn.com/3437/story/894871.html[/url]

The explanation:

[url]http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_response.html[/url]

And a little more:

[url]http://minnesotaindependent.com/41634/franken-begich-alaska-hawaii-map-draw-usa[/url]
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Aug 12, 2009 02:29AM)
Hey everyone...did you know that Al Franken is now a United States senator?

How cool is that?
Message: Posted by: Terry Veckey (Aug 12, 2009 03:00AM)
Shows what a sick sense of humor Minnesotians (sic) have.
Message: Posted by: Bertrand Thornley (Aug 12, 2009 03:30AM)
An educated senator does something that glorifies intelligence and gets public attention! Wow,maybe there is hope.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Aug 12, 2009 04:13AM)
Glorifies intelligence? My IQ is 287, and I can't draw an accurate picture of Colorado, much less the entire U.S.

Al Franken must be GOD...or something close.

Is he educated? Didn't know that. Saturday Night Live University, or where?

Don't tell me Harvard. Please don't tell me Harvard. They didn't let me into Harvard, you know. Or the University of Chicago, either. I had trouble getting accepted into a university. They were afraid of me, I suppose.
Message: Posted by: ClintonMagus (Aug 12, 2009 07:00AM)
I can't stand to watch/listen to more than about ten seconds of Al Franken, but Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Florida are only approximations, and Nevada is larger than California...

What a doofus...
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 12, 2009 08:53AM)
Before you criticize his work, what kind of projection was he drawing? Eh? Was it equal area or equal distance? :lol:

John

PS last time I mentioned Minnesota the thread got nasty. Maybe everyone has settled down a bit since then.

PPS According to Wikipedia, Franken graduated [i]cum laude[/i] from Harvard in 1973.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Aug 12, 2009 09:07AM)
Great. Harvard. You know, I didn't know, but I sort of [i]knew[/i], if you know what I mean.
Message: Posted by: airship (Aug 12, 2009 11:04AM)
Stone, did you leave a decimal point out of that IQ? ;)
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Aug 12, 2009 11:33AM)
Why? Do you think it should be higher? I've been thinking of raising it lately. How does 293 sound?

I like it.
Message: Posted by: gaddy (Aug 12, 2009 02:50PM)
[quote] ...but Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Florida are only approximations, and Nevada is larger than California...

What a doofus...[/quote]

He could cure cancer and the Faux News parrots would find some way to crap on it...
Message: Posted by: NJJ (Aug 12, 2009 03:59PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-12 12:33, stoneunhinged wrote:
Why? Do you think it should be higher? I've been thinking of raising it lately. How does 293 sound?

I like it.
[/quote]

Fahrenheit or Celsius?
Message: Posted by: ClintonMagus (Aug 12, 2009 04:20PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-12 15:50, gaddy wrote:
[quote] ...but Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Florida are only approximations, and Nevada is larger than California...

What a doofus...[/quote]

He could cure cancer and the Faux News parrots would find some way to crap on it...
[/quote]

Sorry, but I don't work for "Faux News". I'm just crapping on him as an ordinary U.S. citizen...

The comment: "Anne Schroeder Mullins, Politico: One of Sen. Al Franken's (D-Minn.) many talents is that he can draw the [contiguous] 48 states perfectly..."

Don't use "perfectly" if you don't mean "perfectly". Isn't this something that ALL students of Social Studies and U.S. History should be able to do?

(BTW, I think Al GORE, and not Al FRANKEN, cured cancer...) :P
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Aug 12, 2009 04:28PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-12 17:20, ClintonMagus wrote:
[quote]
On 2009-08-12 15:50, gaddy wrote:
[quote] ...but Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Florida are only approximations, and Nevada is larger than California...

What a doofus...[/quote]

He could cure cancer and the Faux News parrots would find some way to crap on it...
[/quote]

Sorry, but I don't work for "Faux News". I'm just crapping on him as an ordinary U.S. citizen...

[/quote]

...who agrees with the pundits on Fox News.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 12, 2009 04:29PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-12 17:20, ClintonMagus wrote:
[quote]
On 2009-08-12 15:50, gaddy wrote:
[quote] ...but Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Florida are only approximations, and Nevada is larger than California...

What a doofus...[/quote]

He could cure cancer and the Faux News parrots would find some way to crap on it...
[/quote]

Sorry, but I don't work for "Faux News". I'm just crapping on him as an ordinary U.S. citizen...

The comment: "Anne Schroeder Mullins, Politico: One of Sen. Al Franken's (D-Minn.) many talents is that he can draw the [contiguous] 48 states perfectly..."

Don't use "perfectly" if you don't mean "perfectly". Isn't this something that ALL students of Social Studies and U.S. History should be able to do?

(BTW, I think Al GORE, and not Al FRANKEN, cured cancer...) :P
[/quote]

No, no...it's non-reciprocal. Any criticism makes you a neocon, but it's perfectly acceptable to call the rough approximation "perfect."

What a great gig it would be to be a Democratic magician working the DNC. "Is this your card?" "Well, no, but I did pick a RED card! That's just perfect!!"
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 12, 2009 04:35PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-12 15:50, gaddy wrote:
[quote] ...but Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Florida are only approximations, and Nevada is larger than California...

What a doofus...[/quote]

He could cure cancer and the Faux News parrots would find some way to crap on it...
[/quote]


BTW FWIW, I don't disagree with this post at all; I just disagree with the implication that it's a one-way street. Similarly, if a Republican politician cured cancer, it'd be reported all over the left-wing media and blogosphere as evidence that cancer was a Republican invention in the first place, probably to reduce the population of the poor and/or minorities, who have a disproportionately high percentage of smokers.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 12, 2009 04:43PM)
If Rush Limbaugh cured cancer, Al Franken would suddenly moan and complain about all the unemployed lab workers, and lab rats.

Come on gaddy it is politics. You yourself would automatically dispute ANYTHING Fox says right? At least be honest about it.

If it does not come from an "approved source" people do not believe anything. (approved by the viewer LOL)
Message: Posted by: ClintonMagus (Aug 12, 2009 05:06PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-12 17:28, Steve_Mollett wrote:
[quote]
On 2009-08-12 17:20, ClintonMagus wrote:
[quote]
On 2009-08-12 15:50, gaddy wrote:
[quote] ...but Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Florida are only approximations, and Nevada is larger than California...

What a doofus...[/quote]

He could cure cancer and the Faux News parrots would find some way to crap on it...
[/quote]

Sorry, but I don't work for "Faux News". I'm just crapping on him as an ordinary U.S. citizen...

[/quote]

...who agrees with the pundits on Fox News.
[/quote]

First, I would need to know which ones are considered "pundits" and which ones aren't and on which issues they are considered such. Since I don't agree with everyone on Fox News (or CNN or NBC, or MSNBC, or CNBC, or ABC, or CBS, or BBC, or Al Jazeera for that matter), only THEN could I let you know what percentage of them I agree with, and on which issues... :P
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 12, 2009 05:06PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-12 08:00, ClintonMagus wrote:
I can't stand to watch/listen to more than about ten seconds of Al Franken, but Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Florida are only approximations, and Nevada is larger than California...
[/quote]
It IS a hand drawn map, after all. Done on an upright piece of paper. All in all, it is probably a better map from memory than 99.9999% of the population could draw.

I thought it was a pretty impressive memory demonstration.

I'm sad that you (and others here, evidently) for whatever reason(s) do not appreciate it in the same way.
Message: Posted by: ClintonMagus (Aug 12, 2009 05:13PM)
I appreciate his memory and his artistic abilities definitely overshadow mine, but I'm not quite as orga$mic over it as Ms. Mullins and others seem to be...
Message: Posted by: Tom Bartlett (Aug 12, 2009 05:41PM)
The lines are drawn, apparently by Franken. Let he battle begin. ;)
Message: Posted by: ClintonMagus (Aug 12, 2009 06:08PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-12 18:41, Tom Bartlett wrote:
The lines are drawn...
[/quote]

:P :P :P
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 12, 2009 08:34PM)
Just curious. In the fifth grade we had to learn all the states and where they were and in the sixth to draw it from scratch (not really well but still...), didn't y'all have to do that? The Canadians are exempt from this question. Oh, we also had to fill in Europe, Asia and Africa in the sixth grade.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 12, 2009 08:47PM)
Not me Santa. I did know all the state capitals by heart though.

Got to admit my son laughs at me when I got to check the map to find any of those Eastern European countries that don't work in Contimental!

And don't get me started on any -stan that isn't Paki- or Afghani-.


Jack
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 12, 2009 09:36PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-12 21:34, MagicSanta wrote:
Just curious. In the fifth grade we had to learn all the states and where they were and in the sixth to draw it from scratch (not really well but still...), ...
[/quote]
Yeah, but were you working with fewer States than now, back in your good ol' school daze? :)
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Aug 12, 2009 09:48PM)
Fox sux. we all know it.
Message: Posted by: Scott Cram (Aug 12, 2009 09:57PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-12 09:53, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Before you criticize his work, what kind of projection was he drawing? Eh? Was it equal area or equal distance? :lol:

John

PS last time I mentioned Minnesota the thread got nasty. Maybe everyone has settled down a bit since then.

PPS According to Wikipedia, Franken graduated [i]cum laude[/i] from Harvard in 1973.
[/quote]

Oh, great yet another person trying to start one of those endless internet Mercator vs. Gall-Peters arguments ;)
Message: Posted by: gaddy (Aug 12, 2009 11:23PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-12 17:43, Dannydoyle wrote:
If Rush Limbaugh cured cancer, Al Franken would suddenly moan and complain about all the unemployed lab workers, and lab rats.

Come on gaddy it is politics. You yourself would automatically dispute ANYTHING Fox says right? At least be honest about it.

If it does not come from an "approved source" people do not believe anything. (approved by the viewer LOL)
[/quote]

Not true. but Faux News is SOOOoooo blatant about their agenda and it soooo permeates their entire broadcast news cycle that it's hard to look at it for more than 10 minutes without noticing some drastically slanted news. And when it comes to their featured columnists it's more like every other sentence out of their mouths.

One of my most trusted news sources is the Stratfor report. If you don't know what that is, you should. Also, there's the New Republic, The Economist, WSJ -the list goes on, really... I like to get news from a variety of sources. I'm DRASTICALLY more seletcive about the OPINIONS I care to listen to!
Message: Posted by: Mick Ayres (Aug 13, 2009 12:22AM)
Your first paragraph is true for CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC and MSNBC as well. We all know the media reports opinion far more than just the facts. Give it a rest, Gaddy.
Message: Posted by: Greg Arce (Aug 13, 2009 12:47AM)
This is why I'm neither political nor religious. What I see from both sides when they are so into their side that they cannot see anything as a shade of grey. Their side is always right and the other side is always wrong.

They see nothing bad about their side and see nothing good about the other side.

If this stunt had been done by a fellow performer I'm sure there would have been more people saying it was a good idea for an act and had a new premise rarely seen. Think about it if done blindfolded... or as a weird drawing dupe.

BUT because Mr. Franken is on one side of the political fence then the comments begin.

I'm so glad I don't care either way. It's nice not having a horse in the race... that way you don't have an A-S-S in it either. :rotf:

Greg
Message: Posted by: Greg Arce (Aug 13, 2009 12:48AM)
This is why I'm neither political nor religious. What I see from both sides when they are so into their side that they cannot see anything as a shade of grey. Their side is always right and the other side is always wrong.

They see nothing bad about their side and see nothing good about the other side.

If this stunt had been done by a fellow performer I'm sure there would have been more people saying it was a good idea for an act and had a new premise rarely seen. Think about it if done blindfolded... or has a weird drawing dupe.

BUT because Mr. Franken is on one side of the political fence then the comments begin.

I'm so glad I don't care either way. It's nice not having a horse in the race... that way you don't have an A-S-S in it either. :rotf:

Greg
Message: Posted by: gaddy (Aug 13, 2009 02:20AM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-13 01:22, Mick Ayres wrote:
Your first paragraph is true for CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC and MSNBC as well. We all know the media reports opinion far more than just the facts. Give it a rest, Gaddy.
[/quote]

It seems that quite a few people here cannot separate news from opinions...

I guess it's completely impossible to be objective. I guess that's "the media's" fault. Therefore why not just ratchet up the rhetoric and hysterics a couple more notches, right?

Good stuff here.
Message: Posted by: Mystification (Aug 13, 2009 04:44AM)
The talk show hosts on fox will and have stated that they are giving their OPINIONS! They are not claiming to be unbiased.

Scary thing is, the left wing fall over Obama liberal media on the other networks are supposed to be reporting the NEWS, factual news.

Socialism sucks. But we have it now.

Those who don't take sides and say they don't care, really is a shame. You have no horse in this race? Glad men and women are dying everyday so you can choose to stand on the sideline and watch without a care. A real shame!
Message: Posted by: ClintonMagus (Aug 13, 2009 06:40AM)
Next up - Al Franken sings the Minnesota county seats to the tune of "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star"...

:band:
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Aug 13, 2009 09:14AM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-13 05:44, Mystification wrote:
The talk show hosts on fox will and have stated that they are giving their OPINIONS! They are not claiming to be unbiased.
[/quote]

"Fair and Balanced" :rolleyes:
Message: Posted by: Greg Arce (Aug 13, 2009 09:41AM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-13 05:44, Mystification wrote:
Those who don't take sides and say they don't care, really is a shame. You have no horse in this race? Glad men and women are dying everyday so you can choose to stand on the sideline and watch without a care. A real shame!
[/quote]

Well, I'm glad I have no part in their deaths when they are sometimes dying for made-up causes and for other people's wealth. I feel very sorry for them. I wish things were different, but for a long time those in power made those without it die for no reason other than it might make them some money.

Greg
Message: Posted by: Payne (Aug 13, 2009 10:04AM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-13 05:44, Mystification wrote:

Socialism sucks. But we have it now.

[/quote]

Now? Where have you been for the last 60 years? Social Security, Medicare, Welfare (both corporate and civil) Government subsidies and public education can all be seen as Socialism.

Seems the people complaining about this "new" socialism thing are a bit late in coming to the party.
Message: Posted by: Mystification (Aug 13, 2009 10:45AM)
Payne, better getting to the party late than giving up.

Greg, you might not know this but over 90% of our men and women in the military voted for the previous administration, both times. And in recent polling, would vote for him again if they could. Overwhelmingly they believe in the cause. And those that don't....do after going there. Of course there are always exceptions.

don't be sad for our hero's. They would rather die a hero than live a coward.
Message: Posted by: Regan (Aug 13, 2009 10:48AM)
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp

That link was sent to me buy a friend of mine.

It may be from a study from a conservative organization, I don't know. However, I think it is clear that the mainstream media is slanted toward the left. Of course Fox is not, but how long have they been around? Espeically compared to most of the other news organizations that were mentioned earlier?.

I'm not taking sides but rather joining in on this discussion for the sake of my own curiousty. I used to wonder why the media seemed to have such a liberal slant, and how it came to be in the first place. I think that the universities in America are one of the biggest reasons. I believe most journalists are being taught that way.

Here is a link about it. I know nothing about this particular organization either, but it does make sense to me.

http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2002/october_2002_5.html
Message: Posted by: Greg Arce (Aug 13, 2009 11:51AM)
I just wish they would die for a good reason and not to put money into certain people's pockets. I really feel sorry for people that follow blindly. I know they were taught that way, but it still makes me feel sad.

By the way, thanks for making me still want to sit it out. It is words like the ones you use that make me what I am.
I've always chosen not to be a blind follower. But you keep attacking me and trying to make me feel like a coward and somehow unAmerican... I know you need to do that to make yourself believe in what you believe.

Greg
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 13, 2009 11:57AM)
Greg, I do wish you were more involved, BUT my understanding is that the men and women are risking life and limb so that you are ALLOWED not to be involved. I may not think you are right not to be involved, but you are certainly entitled.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 13, 2009 11:58AM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-13 11:48, Regan wrote:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp

That link was sent to me buy a friend of mine.

[/quote]

If you go to http://www.mediaresearch.org and read their "about" tab, you will see

[quote]
The mission of the Media Research Center, "America's Media Watchdog," is to bring balance to the news media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed — Media Research Center (MRC).[/quote]

This is clearly a report with an agenda. I'd seek a second opinion.

John
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 13, 2009 11:58AM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-13 03:20, gaddy wrote:
[quote]
On 2009-08-13 01:22, Mick Ayres wrote:
Your first paragraph is true for CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC and MSNBC as well. We all know the media reports opinion far more than just the facts. Give it a rest, Gaddy.
[/quote]

It seems that quite a few people here cannot separate news from opinions...
[/quote]

Yes and it seems as if you are one of them LOL.

I like the way people think a FACT is an opinion they agree with!!! Cool.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 13, 2009 11:59AM)
By the way I have over the years found few things ol Al did entertaining. Simply not my style of comedy is all.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 13, 2009 12:13PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-13 12:57, Dannydoyle wrote:
My understanding is that the men and women are risking life and limb so that you are ALLOWED not to be involved
[/quote].

But is your understanding correct? It's [i]my[/i] understanding, that the men and women risking life and limb are, right now, sad to say, making things worse off for Americans and much of the rest of the world, despite what they may genuinely and nobly feel.

But I agree, there is no such thing as not being political. That in itself is a political stance.

Jack
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 13, 2009 12:21PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-13 11:48, Regan wrote:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp

That link was sent to me buy a friend of mine.

It may be from a study from a conservative organization, I don't know. However, I think it is clear that the mainstream media is slanted toward the left. Of course Fox is not, but how long have they been around? Espeically compared to most of the other news organizations that were mentioned earlier?.

I'm not taking sides but rather joining in on this discussion for the sake of my own curiousty. I used to wonder why the media seemed to have such a liberal slant, and how it came to be in the first place. I think that the universities in America are one of the biggest reasons. I believe most journalists are being taught that way.

Here is a link about it. I know nothing about this particular organization either, but it does make sense to me.

http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2002/october_2002_5.html
[/quote]
From it's web page, "Accuracy in Academia" appears to be a lobby group based in Washington D.C. ... and its "bookstore" features 'non-partisan' items like Bush riding / breaking a donkey, 'i'd rather be hunting with cheney than riding with ted kennedy' bumper stickers, a book on Clinton scandals ...
Message: Posted by: Greg Arce (Aug 13, 2009 12:23PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-13 12:57, Dannydoyle wrote:
Greg, I do wish you were more involved, BUT my understanding is that the men and women are risking life and limb so that you are ALLOWED not to be involved. I may not think you are right not to be involved, but you are certainly entitled.
[/quote]

I wish the words you spoke were true. I know for generations we are taught to believe those things, but most of the time we are sheep being led by those above us for their gains... not ours.

I don't blame or dislike people for believing those things the same way I don't blame those that are in cults and are brainwashed into believing certain things. I do feel pity and sorrow. I do wish that I could wave a real magic wand and give them a tabula rasa to work with. But I can't do that so I choose not to drink their Kool-aid... not to march in their parades... etc.

I know the point was made above using statistics. It's curious that you could probably get those same high statistics from countries and people that you either don't believe in or hate if you were to ask them if they are in the right also.

History has shown us time and time again that large groups of people can believe in either really bad things or things that are just plain wrong. I don't blame the masses for being indoctrinated. The guys above are really good at what they do.

Listen, I know I will not change anything here. I can see and read already the thinking behind the statements. I don't think I could use words, or even actions, to change something that has been drilled into someone year in and year out. If you take a child and tell him on a daily basis, "Red is blue, up is down, black is white, etc" then you can't be surprised if as an adult he sees it that way... and believes it to his core. I can't blame that person. They are the victims of a social experiment that went all too well.

I'll leave this thread now so you guys can go on about what is right and wrong and what everyone should do to make a perfect world because I know you truly believe you have the answers.

I will leave on link. I still believe this scene tells more truth about the way the world worked back then and still works today... unfortunately:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI5hrcwU7Dk&feature=related

Take care, guys & gals. I wish you well in your battles. I hope the best for you and please try to keep the casualties to a minimum.

Greg
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 13, 2009 12:41PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-13 12:58, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2009-08-13 11:48, Regan wrote:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp

That link was sent to me buy a friend of mine.

[/quote]

If you go to http://www.mediaresearch.org and read their "about" tab, you will see

[quote]
The mission of the Media Research Center, "America's Media Watchdog," is to bring balance to the news media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed — Media Research Center (MRC).[/quote]

This is clearly a report with an agenda. I'd seek a second opinion.

John
[/quote]


http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:0u-3SK8DlUAJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008+2008+media+presidential+endorsements&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&ie=UTF-8


This is a bit interesting, when you consider it in conjunction with the fact that the difference in Obama voters and McCain voters was about 7%.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 13, 2009 01:14PM)
Part of the problem is that "liberal" and "conservative" are not co-extensive with "Democrat" and "Republican". And they are certainly distinct from "Obama" and "McCain".

So what counts as a "liberal bias" or a "conservative bias"?

John
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 13, 2009 02:36PM)
I just did my map and was informed that Louisiana Purchase is not a state and that including 'unexplored territory' for 80% of Africa was now wrong.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 13, 2009 04:28PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-13 14:14, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Part of the problem is that "liberal" and "conservative" are not co-extensive with "Democrat" and "Republican". And they are certainly distinct from "Obama" and "McCain".

So what counts as a "liberal bias" or a "conservative bias"?

John
[/quote]

While that's certainly true, I think it's a bit disingenuous to act as if that's a refutation of the link I posted. Is it a 1-to-1 correspondence? Of course not. But if you polled self-identified "liberals" and "conservatives" and asked who they voted for, I think we both know we'd see a strong correlation.
Message: Posted by: Tom Bartlett (Aug 13, 2009 04:57PM)
For some, the last election was Republicans against Democrats but to tell the truth I could not see a lot of difference between the ones running in the primary.

My vote in the last election was an opposition vote, to an ideology not a political candidate and I think in many cases it was like that for others, even if they voted for the other candidate.

One thing for certain the conservatives do not shy away from or try to hide who they are, I can’t say that for the liberals.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 13, 2009 05:38PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-13 17:28, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2009-08-13 14:14, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Part of the problem is that "liberal" and "conservative" are not co-extensive with "Democrat" and "Republican". And they are certainly distinct from "Obama" and "McCain".

So what counts as a "liberal bias" or a "conservative bias"?

John
[/quote]

While that's certainly true, I think it's a bit disingenuous to act as if that's a refutation of the link I posted. Is it a 1-to-1 correspondence? Of course not. But if you polled self-identified "liberals" and "conservatives" and asked who they voted for, I think we both know we'd see a strong correlation.
[/quote]

Disingenuous? I don't think so. The issue was ideological bias in reporting, I believe. One-off candidate endorsements are rather another matter.

BTW, notice from your link that the support on the previous presidential election was 213 for Kerry (51%) and 205 for Bush (49%). The actual election went 50.7% Bush, 48.3 Kerry. The popular results are unbelievably close to the actual election results. Do you believe that this indicates unbiased reporting in 2004?

I think you are being selective in your evidence.

John
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 13, 2009 06:02PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-13 18:38, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2009-08-13 17:28, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2009-08-13 14:14, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Part of the problem is that "liberal" and "conservative" are not co-extensive with "Democrat" and "Republican". And they are certainly distinct from "Obama" and "McCain".

So what counts as a "liberal bias" or a "conservative bias"?

John
[/quote]

While that's certainly true, I think it's a bit disingenuous to act as if that's a refutation of the link I posted. Is it a 1-to-1 correspondence? Of course not. But if you polled self-identified "liberals" and "conservatives" and asked who they voted for, I think we both know we'd see a strong correlation.
[/quote]

Disingenuous? I don't think so. The issue was ideological bias in reporting, I believe. One-off candidate endorsements are rather another matter.

BTW, notice from your link that the support on the previous presidential election was 213 for Kerry (51%) and 205 for Bush (49%). The actual election went 50.7% Bush, 48.3 Kerry. The popular results are unbelievably close to the actual election results. Do you believe that this indicates unbiased reporting in 2004?

I think you are being selective in your evidence.

John
[/quote]

I think that the 2004 results are evidence of a lack of bias, and I think that the 2008 results are evidence of the existence of bias. I don't think that either constitutes proof.

Do you think that there's no correlation between "liberal" and "supported Obama," or between "conservative" and "supported McCain"?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 13, 2009 06:13PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-13 19:02, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
Do you think that there's no correlation between "liberal" and "supported Obama," or between "conservative" and "supported McCain"?
[/quote]

From what I can see in the American media, "liberal" and "conservative" are fairly empty labels, used more for one's enemies than for oneself.

It's not clear to me that Obama's supporters are greater advocates of liberty than are McCain's, and I don't see McCain's wanting to conserve existing privilege more than do Obama's.

John
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 13, 2009 06:35PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-13 19:13, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2009-08-13 19:02, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
Do you think that there's no correlation between "liberal" and "supported Obama," or between "conservative" and "supported McCain"?
[/quote]

From what I can see in the American media, "liberal" and "conservative" are fairly empty labels, used more for one's enemies than for oneself.

It's not clear to me that Obama's supporters are greater advocates of liberty than are McCain's, and I don't see McCain's wanting to conserve existing privilege more than do Obama's.

John
[/quote]

Sometimes I can't tell whether you're pulling my leg.

With respect to the purported liberal media bias, "liberal" has a connotation of certain positions with respect to various issues (in some combination and to various extents), such as;

* opposed to capital punishment
* in favor of legal abortion
* in favor of more gun control
* in favor of greater federal power in the government
* less prone to support military action

As opposed to, well, pretty much the opposite.

If by "greater advocates of liberty," you mean a Mill-ian "classical liberalism," or something more akin to libertarian, I agree completely that neither side is much closer to that ideal than the other. But that's not really what's being alleged with respect to "liberal bias."
Message: Posted by: Greg Arce (Aug 13, 2009 06:59PM)
Wow, and to think this whole thread started about a guy drawing a US map by hand. Can you imagine the outrage it would have caused if he rewrote the Constitution backwards and while upside down! :rotf:

Greg
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 13, 2009 07:07PM)
Lobo, concerning the statistics you posted, I observe they only considered print media.

I wonder how would it change if one included non-print media, and also included talk shows and the candidates the hosts there endorsed?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 13, 2009 07:07PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-13 19:59, Greg Arce wrote:
Wow, and to think this whole thread started about a guy drawing a US map by hand. Can you imagine the outrage it would have caused if he rewrote the Constitution backwards and while upside down! :rotf:

Greg
[/quote]
I know! Lol.
Message: Posted by: Sam Weiss (Aug 13, 2009 07:23PM)
Yeah exactly! This thread isn't about politics! It's about a guy who can draw a map of the US from memory and he just HAPPENS to be Al Franken. Who cares if it's not perfect! If you can't replicate the stunt he does you shouldn't criticize the accuracy. As much as I like debating politics, this isn't the thread for it.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 13, 2009 07:43PM)
I think the twists and turns of the thread are exactly the point. While some wish to accuse the media of bias (which it undoubtedly has), the direction of finger pointing appears to be exclusively "those bad guys are giving unfair coverage to my (correct) position."

To some, showing Franken in a good light is tantamount to having a "liberal bias"--whatever that means.

John
Message: Posted by: Tom Bartlett (Aug 13, 2009 07:44PM)
John,

Tantamount means: equivalent to a particular thing in effect, outcome, or value, especially something unpleasant. :rotf:

If the post to this thread had been limited to Franken and his map, this thread would have ended about as soon as it was posted. :)
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 13, 2009 09:59PM)
I want to run a vent figure for office in Minnesota and see if it wins.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 13, 2009 11:39PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-13 20:44, Tom Bartlett wrote:
John,

Tantamount means: equivalent to a particular thing in effect, outcome, or value, especially something unpleasant. :rotf:

[/quote]

The "unpleasant" is a funny bit, but in disagreement with [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tantamount]this[/url] dictionary. :)

John
Message: Posted by: Tom Bartlett (Aug 14, 2009 12:21AM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-14 00:39, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2009-08-13 20:44, Tom Bartlett wrote:
John,

Tantamount means: equivalent to a particular thing in effect, outcome, or value, especially something unpleasant. :rotf:

[/quote]Not exactly in dis

The "unpleasant" is a funny bit, but in disagreement with [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tantamount]this[/url] dictionary. :)

John
[/quote]Not exactly in disagreement:

tan⋅ta⋅mount  /ˈtæntəˌmaʊnt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [tan-tuh-mount] Show IPA
Use tantamount in a Sentence
–adjective equivalent, as in value, force, effect, or signification: His angry speech was tantamount to a declaration of war.

War may be necessary but enormously unpleasant. ;)
Message: Posted by: gaddy (Aug 14, 2009 12:29AM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-13 20:23, Sam Weiss wrote:
Yeah exactly! This thread isn't about politics! It's about a guy who can draw a map of the US from memory and he just HAPPENS to be Al Franken. Who cares if it's not perfect! If you can't replicate the stunt he does you shouldn't criticize the accuracy. As much as I like debating politics, this isn't the thread for it.
[/quote]

try mentioning al gore, and see how quickly a "discussion" [sic] turns to politics...
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 14, 2009 12:45AM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-14 01:21, Tom Bartlett wrote:
[quote]
On 2009-08-14 00:39, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2009-08-13 20:44, Tom Bartlett wrote:
John,

Tantamount means: equivalent to a particular thing in effect, outcome, or value, especially something unpleasant. :rotf:

[/quote]Not exactly in dis

The "unpleasant" is a funny bit, but in disagreement with [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tantamount]this[/url] dictionary. :)

John
[/quote]Not exactly in disagreement:

tan⋅ta⋅mount  /ˈtæntəˌmaʊnt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [tan-tuh-mount] Show IPA
Use tantamount in a Sentence
–adjective equivalent, as in value, force, effect, or signification: His angry speech was tantamount to a declaration of war.

War may be necessary but enormously unpleasant. ;)
[/quote]
I really do not think unpleasantness is necessary for something to be tantamount to something else.

Myself, I always prefer to look up words in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. In this case:

[url]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tantamount[/url]

---
* Main Entry: tan·ta·mount
* Pronunciation: \ˈtan-tə-ˌmau̇nt\
* Function: adjective
* Etymology: obsolete tantamount, noun, equivalent, from Anglo-French tant amunter to amount to as much
* Date: 1641

: equivalent in value, significance, or effect <a relationship tantamount to marriage>
---

Marriage. Hmmm.
Message: Posted by: Tom Bartlett (Aug 14, 2009 01:21AM)
Balducci

That's a heck of a way to disagree!

Don't you just love words.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 14, 2009 01:45AM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-14 01:29, gaddy wrote:
[quote]
On 2009-08-13 20:23, Sam Weiss wrote:
Yeah exactly! This thread isn't about politics! It's about a guy who can draw a map of the US from memory and he just HAPPENS to be Al Franken. Who cares if it's not perfect! If you can't replicate the stunt he does you shouldn't criticize the accuracy. As much as I like debating politics, this isn't the thread for it.
[/quote]

try mentioning al gore, and see how quickly a "discussion" [sic] turns to politics...
[/quote]

Doesn't it turn to politics by definition upon your mentioning him? That's like saying try mentioning Phil Mickelson and see how quickly a discussion turns to golf. The "sic" should go after "turns" not "discussion."
Message: Posted by: Regan (Aug 14, 2009 07:11AM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-13 22:59, MagicSanta wrote:
I want to run a vent figure for office in Minnesota and see if it wins.
[/quote]

Will it be a Democrat, Republican, or what?

:)
Message: Posted by: hou_dini (Aug 14, 2009 07:19AM)
Already was done here--it was named Ventura
Message: Posted by: ClintonMagus (Aug 14, 2009 07:28AM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-14 02:45, LobowolfXXX wrote:The "sic" should go after "turns" not "discussion."
[/quote]

Actually, I don't think there should be a [sic] at all, since none of the words have an archaic or incorrect spelling...
Message: Posted by: Regan (Aug 14, 2009 07:37AM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-14 08:19, hou_dini wrote:
Already was done here--it was named Ventura
[/quote]

:)

I guess MagicSanta is too late! Wait...Jesse just, "The Body", so maybe Santa can do the head too! :)

Come to think of it, aren't most politicians puppets?
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Aug 14, 2009 08:32AM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-14 02:21, Tom Bartlett wrote:
Balducci

That's a heck of a way to disagree!

Don't you just love words.
[/quote]

The old system: debating the 'meanings of words' to circumvent issues.
Just as well; the issues at hand weren't worth discussing.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 14, 2009 11:50AM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-14 08:28, ClintonMagus wrote:
[quote]
On 2009-08-14 02:45, LobowolfXXX wrote:The "sic" should go after "turns" not "discussion."
[/quote]

Actually, I don't think there should be a [sic] at all, since none of the words have an archaic or incorrect spelling...
[/quote]

Yeah, it's kind of like "ironic," post-Morrissette. Sometimes it's simpler to go with the intended meaning.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 14, 2009 07:08PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-14 12:50, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2009-08-14 08:28, ClintonMagus wrote:
[quote]
On 2009-08-14 02:45, LobowolfXXX wrote:The "sic" should go after "turns" not "discussion."
[/quote]

Actually, I don't think there should be a [sic] at all, since none of the words have an archaic or incorrect spelling...
[/quote]

Yeah, it's kind of like "ironic," post-Morrissette. Sometimes it's simpler to go with the intended meaning.
[/quote]

Yea I hated that song too.

Great episode of a "Post Cheers" sit com with George Went. (probably should google him so I spell his name right LOL, so I mean the Norm charector for anyone who wants to jump on me) A guy said something smart alec to him and the guy looks and says to George "I was just being IRONIC MAN". To which he replied, "No, you were being 'sarcastic'. Although it was IRONIC you didn't know that".
Message: Posted by: Greg Arce (Aug 14, 2009 10:27PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-14 20:08, Dannydoyle wrote
Great episode of a "Post Cheers" sit com with George Went. (probably should google him so I spell his name right LOL, so I mean the Norm charector for anyone who wants to jump on me) A guy said something smart alec to him and the guy looks and says to George "I was just being IRONIC MAN". To which he replied, "No, you were being 'sarcastic'. Although it was IRONIC you didn't know that".
[/quote]


My favorite Norm line: "It's a dog eat dog world out there and I'm wearing milkbone underwear."

Greg
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 14, 2009 10:33PM)
I love that one too.

Tough to pick a "favorite" for me because every time I remember one or see one, THAT is my new favorite!

I hope between the two of us we have managed to sidetrack the discussion for good.
Message: Posted by: Greg Arce (Aug 14, 2009 11:58PM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-14 23:33, Dannydoyle wrote:
I love that one too.

Tough to pick a "favorite" for me because every time I remember one or see one, THAT is my new favorite!

I hope between the two of us we have managed to sidetrack the discussion for good.
[/quote]

What discussion? :rotf:

Greg
Message: Posted by: gaddy (Aug 15, 2009 12:19AM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-14 02:45, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2009-08-14 01:29, gaddy wrote:
[quote]
On 2009-08-13 20:23, Sam Weiss wrote:
Yeah exactly! This thread isn't about politics! It's about a guy who can draw a map of the US from memory and he just HAPPENS to be Al Franken. Who cares if it's not perfect! If you can't replicate the stunt he does you shouldn't criticize the accuracy. As much as I like debating politics, this isn't the thread for it.
[/quote]

try mentioning al gore, and see how quickly a "discussion" [sic] turns to politics...
[/quote]

Doesn't it turn to politics by definition upon your mentioning him? That's like saying try mentioning Phil Mickelson and see how quickly a discussion turns to golf. The "sic" should go after "turns" not "discussion."
[/quote]

[quote] from wisegeek.com -"Many publications use sic in a somewhat snide way, to highlight an error"[/quote]

No, this is no discussion, except for the part about the definition of certain words. The rest is all crap. To call it such would be an error. This is just typical "Nots" ideological digital stroking off.

And snide is my middle name...
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 15, 2009 03:10AM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-15 01:19, gaddy wrote:
[quote]
On 2009-08-14 02:45, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2009-08-14 01:29, gaddy wrote:
[quote]
On 2009-08-13 20:23, Sam Weiss wrote:
Yeah exactly! This thread isn't about politics! It's about a guy who can draw a map of the US from memory and he just HAPPENS to be Al Franken. Who cares if it's not perfect! If you can't replicate the stunt he does you shouldn't criticize the accuracy. As much as I like debating politics, this isn't the thread for it.
[/quote]

try mentioning al gore, and see how quickly a "discussion" [sic] turns to politics...
[/quote]

Doesn't it turn to politics by definition upon your mentioning him? That's like saying try mentioning Phil Mickelson and see how quickly a discussion turns to golf. The "sic" should go after "turns" not "discussion."
[/quote]

[quote] from wisegeek.com -"Many publications use sic in a somewhat snide way, to highlight an error"[/quote]

No, this is no discussion, except for the part about the definition of certain words. The rest is all crap. To call it such would be an error. This is just typical "Nots" ideological digital stroking off.

And snide is my middle name...
[/quote]

My point was that the "discussion" (for what it's worth) wouldn't "turn" to politics after person X mentions Al Gore; Person X has himself turned it to politics.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Aug 16, 2009 12:17AM)
[quote]
On 2009-08-12 10:07, stoneunhinged wrote:
Great. Harvard. You know, I didn't know, but I sort of [i]knew[/i], if you know what I mean.
[/quote]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J04FRsesBQ