Clint Eastwood at the GOP Convention

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Don't expect a rational analysis from Ron - he has already told us that facts don't enter into his worldview.

To be accurate, I am not interested in facts with a liberal bias. I am only concerned with those that have a conservative bias. I am prejudiced for what is right.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Stumpy 284]

Facts don't have a bias. They are facts.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Facts don't have a bias. They are facts.

You never studied statistics I gather.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[billvon 3,111]

>To be accurate, I am not interested in facts with a liberal bias.

Fair enough - and reality does have a well-known liberal bias. From an interview with Karl Rove:

====================
The aide [Rove] said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
=================

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Facts don't have a bias. They are facts.

You never studied statistics I gather.

statistical outcomes are factual, but people often misuse them or fail to understand what the conclusion actually means.

The problems the GOP has been having with facts this week were not of a statistical nature.

[Stumpy 284]

Statistics do not necessarily equal facts

Statistics are an interpretation of facts. That interpretation can be (and frequently is) flawed.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

Don't expect a rational analysis from Ron - he has already told us that facts don't enter into his worldview.

To be accurate, I am not interested in facts with a liberal bias. I am only concerned with those that have a conservative bias. I am prejudiced for what is right.

So you are only interested in biased facts?

Or only in those facts that support your position?

And it's interesting that you equate "Conservative" with "Right."

I got this in an e-mail recently from a friend who forwards a fair amount of interesting stuff, along with the occasional load of garbage:

Quote

POTUS REALLY makes us PROUD........doesn't he????????

He is OUR president.
Sleep well tonight.

Our media is soooooo corrupt!!!

When Obama visited Master Lock in Milwaukee, Wisconsin last week, he walked the plant and stopped to talk with a plant employee, and looked up at this banner hanging on the wall and said to the worker and people around him: "It is great to be in a union shop, especially one as old as this union is " - - - - pointing to the banner. He then said, "A Union shop since 1848" - - - and then he went on to talk on what that banner stood for and how important it was to display it and show your union support.
The worker then said to Obama that it was the flag of the State of Wisconsin which was founded in 1848 - - and that the shop was Non-Union.

This was only reported by a local radio station in Milwaukee (1130AM) and not by the major news networks.They didn't want to embarrass this "got no friggin' clue"President!
Since they didn't do their job of reporting on this presidential visit, the only way for the news to get around is by us - on the Internet. The White House media said he skipped Wisconsin & just went to Minn & Chicago.

Do your job; I just did mine, so voters will know what really happened here and just HOW BRIGHT THIS PRESIDENT REALLY IS !!!??? NOT!!

'LIVE FREE OR DIE..'

When I "Snopesed" it, I found THIS

Totally false. Never happened and Master Lock is a union shop.

His response?

Quote

Snopes is sometimes wrong but I DO NOT CARE AS I LIKED THE STORY

He'd much rather believe and spread falsehoods because of his "feelings" than hear the truth.

I personally don't like Obama and won't vote for him.

But for reasons that are real, not made up.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

>To be accurate, I am not interested in facts with a liberal bias.

Fair enough - and reality does have a well-known liberal bias. From an interview with Karl Rove:

====================
The aide [Rove] said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
=================

At first I thought you were throwing me a curve. However, after reading again I agree. It makes sense to me.

Therefore, my belief that are facts or data are biased by the feelings, beliefs and fantasies of the one posting them.

Only pure original research has a chance of being unbiased. Then comes that pesky peer review.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

He'd much rather believe and spread falsehoods because of his "feelings" than hear the truth.

I personally don't like Obama and won't vote for him.

But for reasons that are real, not made up.

I refer you to my response to billvon above. Their are no facts about BHO or Romney that are not biased one way or another.

Think conceptually and vote your conscience. The choice is between socialism or capitalism.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

He'd much rather believe and spread falsehoods because of his "feelings" than hear the truth.

I personally don't like Obama and won't vote for him.

But for reasons that are real, not made up.

I refer you to my response to billvon above. Their are no facts about BHO or Romney that are not biased one way or another.

Think conceptually and vote your conscience. The choice is between socialism or capitalism.

Facts are facts. It's the presentation and interpretation that is biased.

The real problem is the proliferation of bullshit presented as fact, and the willingness of the "useful idiots" to spread them. Both sides are guilty of this, but it seems that the conservatives are spewing a bit more of late. Although, it was the liberals that were doing it to GWB when he was in office, so I think it's more of a "who is in office" than any idealogical basis.

I agree with your idea of voting your concience. I just don't agree that Obama and Romney are that far apart. Or would be able to do much major damage, given a divided congress.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Facts are facts. It's the presentation and interpretation that is biased.

The real problem is the proliferation of bullshit presented as fact, and the willingness of the "useful idiots" to spread them. Both sides are guilty of this, but it seems that the conservatives are spewing a bit more of late. Although, it was the liberals that were doing it to GWB when he was in office, so I think it's more of a "who is in office" than any idealogical basis.

I agree with your idea of voting your concience. I just don't agree that Obama and Romney are that far apart. Or would be able to do much major damage, given a divided congress.

Here is an example of the counterpoint to billvon's facts about unemployment posted above. What tickled me is that it is from CNN. They go into detail to state, we are not better off.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/politics/fact-check-obama-jobs/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Both billvon and CNN are researching the same data. Billvon leans toward liberal favoritism.

I am not certain that Romney is much different overall. I simply believe that capitalism stands a better chance with him than with BHO.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

What are we calling the last guy in office? Was he also a businessman? How'd that work out for us?

He was a bad businessman. Comparing Romney's business credentials to Bush's and claiming they are anywhere near the same is like claiming Neil Armstrong and the kid flying a kite in the park are both 'pilots'.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

What are we calling the last guy in office? Was he also a businessman? How'd that work out for us?

He was a bad businessman. Comparing Romney's business credentials to Bush's and claiming they are anywhere near the same is like claiming Neil Armstrong and the kid flying a kite in the park are both 'pilots'.

Rubbish - GWB and cronies managed to rip off the city of Arlington, TX, for some $100M.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,111]

>Only pure original research has a chance of being unbiased.

Unfortunately pure original research represents reality - and thus does not yet have the sort of conservative bias that conservatives need to feel good about the data. That doesn't happen until it has been passed through the filters that Rush Limbaugh, FOX News, Todd Aiken etc. provide.

Let's take an example. Four doctors at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Medical University of South Carolina - Holmes, Resnick, Kilpatrick and Best - reviewed the medical data of over 4000 women who had been raped, and determined that pregnancy occurred about 5% of the time. That's hard data, and combined with the number of rapes that occur, result in tens of thousands of pregnancies a year from rape, depending on the year.

But that sort of data isn't acceptable to many conservatives. They feel that if that data is accepted, then banning all abortion will be seen as an attack on women who have been raped. And they feel that if they are seen to attack raped women, they might lose elections. So they need to modify the data.

Enter the conservative worldview. A conservative member of the House science committee creates a new truthy fact - women who are "legitimately raped" generally don''t get pregnant. This solves the problem and makes conservatives feel better, since pregnant women who were raped can now be classified as "not really raped" and thus banning abortion only affects these "not really raped" women.

Those of us who live in the reality based community cannot create such truthy facts and are forced to live with actual reality. Not as much fun, and a a real handicap for politicians. But for engineers, scientists, doctors etc it's a lot more fruitful.

[normiss 893]

Quote

>Only pure original research has a chance of being unbiased.

Unfortunately pure original research represents reality - and thus does not yet have the sort of conservative bias that conservatives need to feel good about the data. That doesn't happen until it has been passed through the filters that Rush Limbaugh, FOX News, Todd Aiken etc. provide.

Let's take an example. Four doctors at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Medical University of South Carolina - Holmes, Resnick, Kilpatrick and Best - reviewed the medical data of over 4000 women who had been raped, and determined that pregnancy occurred about 5% of the time. That's hard data, and combined with the number of rapes that occur, result in tens of thousands of pregnancies a year from rape, depending on the year.

But that sort of data isn't acceptable to many conservatives. They feel that if that data is accepted, then banning all abortion will be seen as an attack on women who have been raped. And they feel that if they are seen to attack raped women, they might lose elections. So they need to modify the data.

Enter the EXTREME conservative worldview. A conservative member of the House science committee creates a new truthy fact - women who are "legitimately raped" generally don''t get pregnant. This solves the problem and makes conservatives feel better, since pregnant women who were raped can now be classified as "not really raped" and thus banning abortion only affects these "not really raped" women.

Those of us who live in the reality based community cannot create such truthy facts and are forced to live with actual reality. Not as much fun, and a a real handicap for politicians. But for engineers, scientists, doctors etc it's a lot more fruitful.

FIFY

Those of us who live in the reality based community do not necessarily agree with insane comments and opinions like that. No matter what political affiliation they are sourced from.

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

Quote

Like I said, smoke and mirrors. esoteric data means nothing to regular people. None of this makes me, my neighbors, my friends feel better about BHO.

None of these figures make "real" uplifting news. It's like the quarterback that passed for 300 yards but lost the game.

Illustrated fact: In the last 50 years, Democrats are consistently betterless awful at managing the federal budget and the economy.

Illustrated fact: In the last 100 years, Presidents with a business background have ranged between pretty bad and the absolute worst at their jobs, and the last three were especially bad at economic issues.

Illustrated fact: US alternative energy production is demonstrably greater now that it was previously, in both private investment and energy output.

Your response: "Screw you and your facts, they mean nothing! What about our FEELINGS?! " Rest assured, if emotions and feelings end up winning this election, it'll be a landslide for Obama over that out-of-touch, uninspiring, dull stick-in-the mud the Republicans are offering up.

Blues,
Dave

And BOOM goes the dynamite!

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

>Only pure original research has a chance of being unbiased.

Unfortunately pure original research represents reality - and thus does not yet have the sort of conservative bias that conservatives need to feel good about the data. That doesn't happen until it has been passed through the filters that Rush Limbaugh, FOX News, Todd Aiken etc. provide.

Let's take an example. Four doctors at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Medical University of South Carolina - Holmes, Resnick, Kilpatrick and Best - reviewed the medical data of over 4000 women who had been raped, and determined that pregnancy occurred about 5% of the time. That's hard data, and combined with the number of rapes that occur, result in tens of thousands of pregnancies a year from rape, depending on the year.

But that sort of data isn't acceptable to many conservatives. They feel that if that data is accepted, then banning all abortion will be seen as an attack on women who have been raped. And they feel that if they are seen to attack raped women, they might lose elections. So they need to modify the data.

Enter the conservative worldview. A conservative member of the House science committee creates a new truthy fact - women who are "legitimately raped" generally don''t get pregnant. This solves the problem and makes conservatives feel better, since pregnant women who were raped can now be classified as "not really raped" and thus banning abortion only affects these "not really raped" women.

Those of us who live in the reality based community cannot create such truthy facts and are forced to live with actual reality. Not as much fun, and a a real handicap for politicians. But for engineers, scientists, doctors etc it's a lot more fruitful.

Now that is a perfect example of liberal spin on an imaginary issue created from the slip of the tongue by someone speaking extemporaneously.

Nice.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[rushmc 23]

He has done it to them again!!!

And he did it using his home town paper

http://www.pineconearchive.com/120907-1.html


He stuffed the media again
Gotta love the guy

Quote

AFTER A week as topic No. 1 in American politics, former Carmel Mayor Clint Eastwood said the outpouring of criticism from left-wing reporters and liberal politicians after his appearance at the Republican National Convention last Thursday night, followed by an avalanche of support on Twitter and in the blogosphere, is all the proof anybody needs that his 12-minute discourse achieved exactly what he intended it to.

“President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” Eastwood told The Pine Cone this week. “Romney and Ryan would do a much better job running the country, and that’s what everybody needs to know. I may have irritated a lot of the lefties, but I was aiming for people in the middle.” …

“I had three points I wanted to make,” Eastwood said. “That not everybody in Hollywood is on the left, that Obama has broken a lot of the promises he made when he took office, and that the people should feel free to get rid of any politician who’s not doing a good job. But I didn’t make up my mind exactly what I was going to say until I said it.”

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln