Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
As I posted earlier, I watched the entire 5 hours of the Republican debate on CNN yesterday as a learning experience. I was puzzled by a debate summary that was posted by an MFOer presumably from the NY Times.
I certainly agreed with some of the commentary, but I didn’t recognize other elements. They seemed distorted. If this is representative of the NY Times reporting skills and accuracy, it is sadly defective.
Well the explanation is simplicity itself. The referenced article was not culled from the news sections of that paper. It is an opinion piece authored by the Times staff. Here is the Link to that opinion article:
The title of the work, “Crazy Talk at the Republican Debate”, hints at bias in the piece. It doesn’t disappoint in that regard. For comparative purposes, here is a Link to a debate article that appeared in the news section of the paper:
This is a more fair summary of the event. The disparities between the two articles are obvious, but you judge for yourself.
This is a terrific illustration of why using primary sources are so critical. Everyone is free to express an opinion. But that opinion should be clearly identified as such. Distortions and corruptions are always introduced when interpretations and opinions (potentially biased) are presented.
It is easy to selectively omit pertinent qualifiers, both as a dishonest reporter or by the candidates themselves under the tight time constraints imposed by CNN. Keep in mind that the candidates can only address questions constructed by the interviewers which impose further limits on the responders. That’s why being a real-time part of the TV audience is so important.
All this just reinforces my commitment to review the most primary sources that I can access. I don’t need someone else’s opinions, especially from a mystery person source.
As I said in my earlier submittal, I anxiously await the Democrat debate upcoming in about a month. These debates are just the opening salvos in a long battle. I will not be making any final judgments for over a year from now.
>> title of the work, “Crazy Talk at the Republican Debate”, hints at bias in the piece.
Huh? Hints? You are probably not unaware of what circular reasoning is.
It was an editorial and so identified; nothing dishonest about it. I guess I could have mentioned that. Apologies if you thought it was a transcript.
It was not posing as news even in my posting. I found it covered everything quite fairly and rather fully, myself, using 'primary' utterances. Little interpretation necessary.
>> Keep in mind that the candidates can only address questions constructed by the interviewers
Please. Your reflexive nominal interest in method hygiene precludes hearing them gratuitously offer their considered thoughts about vaccination and building walls and showing toughness to Putin.
Maybe I should be writing for the NY Times. Before the "debate" (see above), I wrote:
It's just hilarious how all of these jokers are "going to do this" and "going to do that" without the slightest reference to the constitutional, legal and political limitations that really dictate what gets done and what doesn't. If they are not totally ignorant then they are cynically playing to a group of voters who are.
If, you were ever to post something, anything for that matter, on a positive note; that would be newsworthy. Your usual cynicism is not.
"It felt at times as if the speakers were no longer living in a fact-based world where actions have consequences, programs take money and money has to come from somewhere. Where basic laws — like physics and the Constitution — constrain wishes. Where Congress and the public, allies and enemies, markets and militaries don’t just do what you want them to just because you say they will."
Can someone please inform our current President of these basic laws?
The lack of connection to reality is by no means singular to the Republican party. I'm sure we'll be equally entertained when the Democrats get their turn.
No argument, but I think that most of us are capable of adjusting our estimations of editorial factuality based on our knowledge of the sources, whether they be the Boston Globe, NY Times, or the Wall Street Journal.
I was getting psyched about her poise and smarts until her grotesque, grisly lying and pandering about abortion and her misrepresentation of biz record and career. Phooey! I thought she might offer something real.
What happened? No additional references to Paul Krugman, at least not yet.
In the political arena I try to be as neutral as possible. That neutrality is mostly governed by my belief that the most important personal asset that a US President needs is leadership capability. And leadership qualities are political party neutral.
In my very first presidential election I voted for Dwight D. Eisenhower (R). In the next election, I voted for John F. Kennedy (D). In subsequent elections, I voted for Lynden B. Johnson (D) and Ronald W. Reagan (R). I respected their leadership qualities, not necessarily their parties, over their opponents in each instance.
History proves that both major political parties are populated by smart, good, and dedicated men and women. Also, the reverse is true.
Presidential elections are always of supreme significance. I will continue to evaluate candidates seeking evidence of exceptional leadership qualities. My probing will not stop until days before the election.
Your recent gratuitous reference to me as some sort of “reportage” monitor is needlessly provoking and simply wrong. That says much more about you than about me.
I do not appreciate the not so subtle innuendos. Those are totally unnecessary. This should end now.
@davidrmoran I was getting psyched about her poise and smarts until her grotesque, grisly lying
Oh, come on....I think you're exaggerating about Hillary just a little bit (I took liberties with my cut and paste...just like Hillary and her emails!)
>> gratuitous reference to me as some sort of “reportage” monitor is needlessly provoking and simply wrong.
Wait, what? This is a role you have assumed many times, most recently above, railing after reading an editorial as something other, ... except then an actual piece of reporting is given that said the same thing. What's the problem? I mean, own it, dude; you don't get to provoke and then run away when called out.
>> That says much more about you than about me.
yeah, yeah, you always say this.
>> I do not appreciate the not so subtle innuendos. Those are totally unnecessary. This should end now.
Should I salute? What kind of innuendo? Why are you allowed to write what you write and then not get responded to? Huh?
Was not trying to be subtle.
L5b, has HRC falsified and distorted email? Tell all!
Was anyone talking about you? Oh, oh, wait, are you and MJG the same person ??
(I read that Jeb! thinks BO uses too big words too.)
Now I gotta go back and see where I ever linked to a voluminous pdf. Maybe it was some pertinent economics paper? We could forbid actual non-investment research here and just go w/ gut opining, I suppose.
The lack of connection to reality is by no means singular to the Republican party. I'm sure we'll be equally entertained when the Democrats get their turn.
Good point Old Joe. And just to be fair, I promise to link a piece from IBD after they've had a chance to critique the Democrats' debate.
@MJG, In your list of your presidential votes, you conspicuously left off all elections since Reagan? If you don't mind my asking, is there a reason? There's been a lot of years and elections since then. So have you oscillated back and forth between parties after Reagan?
Yes, I continue voting for anticipated leadership qualities. I am ex-military and I treasure the benefits of committed leadership. I recognize that leaders are never perfect given the uncertainties that often exist at crucial decision moments. I have made judgment errors in some of my assessments, but I persist in my policy.
On my computer system, MFO rejects some of my posts because of a length constraint. Such was the case for my last posting attempt that defined more of my recent Presidential election choices.
I eliminated three choices in my original posting attempt to (1) overcome the posting length limit, and, (2) I felt these would be most contentious since they were rather current choices. I really do attempt to dampen emotional controversy; I guess I often fail that goal.
I deleted these three presidential choices from my original posting attempt. I voted for winner William Clinton (D, great economy). On the losing side of my presidential scorecard, I voted for John McCain (R, military hero), and Mitt Romney (R, proven success record). I’m sure this disclosure will solicit some angry outbursts, likely one from davidrmoran.
Moliere said: “It infuriates me to be wrong, when I know I’m right.” That thought applies to several guys on this MFO Board. I’m sure you never use it. I don’t.
I was getting psyched about her poise and smarts until her grotesque, grisly lying and pandering about abortion and her misrepresentation of biz record and career.
Yes, but she prattled them off with such power and conviction, she clearly won the night.
Comments
As I posted earlier, I watched the entire 5 hours of the Republican debate on CNN yesterday as a learning experience. I was puzzled by a debate summary that was posted by an MFOer presumably from the NY Times.
I certainly agreed with some of the commentary, but I didn’t recognize other elements. They seemed distorted. If this is representative of the NY Times reporting skills and accuracy, it is sadly defective.
Well the explanation is simplicity itself. The referenced article was not culled from the news sections of that paper. It is an opinion piece authored by the Times staff. Here is the Link to that opinion article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/18/opinion/crazy-talk-at-the-republican-debate.html
The title of the work, “Crazy Talk at the Republican Debate”, hints at bias in the piece. It doesn’t disappoint in that regard. For comparative purposes, here is a Link to a debate article that appeared in the news section of the paper:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/17/arts/television/review-in-republican-debate-cnn-throws-candidates-into-ring.html?_r=0
This is a more fair summary of the event. The disparities between the two articles are obvious, but you judge for yourself.
This is a terrific illustration of why using primary sources are so critical. Everyone is free to express an opinion. But that opinion should be clearly identified as such. Distortions and corruptions are always introduced when interpretations and opinions (potentially biased) are presented.
It is easy to selectively omit pertinent qualifiers, both as a dishonest reporter or by the candidates themselves under the tight time constraints imposed by CNN. Keep in mind that the candidates can only address questions constructed by the interviewers which impose further limits on the responders. That’s why being a real-time part of the TV audience is so important.
All this just reinforces my commitment to review the most primary sources that I can access. I don’t need someone else’s opinions, especially from a mystery person source.
As I said in my earlier submittal, I anxiously await the Democrat debate upcoming in about a month. These debates are just the opening salvos in a long battle. I will not be making any final judgments for over a year from now.
Best Wishes.
Huh? Hints? You are probably not unaware of what circular reasoning is.
It was an editorial and so identified; nothing dishonest about it. I guess I could have mentioned that. Apologies if you thought it was a transcript.
It was not posing as news even in my posting. I found it covered everything quite fairly and rather fully, myself, using 'primary' utterances. Little interpretation necessary.
>> Keep in mind that the candidates can only address questions constructed by the interviewers
Please. Your reflexive nominal interest in method hygiene precludes hearing them gratuitously offer their considered thoughts about vaccination and building walls and showing toughness to Putin.
Good grief! What have I done to you lately?
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/09/17/the-republican-party-has-allergy-facts/AlbsCuP4e4GobyqCmYImbJ/story.html
Can someone please inform our current President of these basic laws?
What happened? No additional references to Paul Krugman, at least not yet.
In the political arena I try to be as neutral as possible. That neutrality is mostly governed by my belief that the most important personal asset that a US President needs is leadership capability. And leadership qualities are political party neutral.
In my very first presidential election I voted for Dwight D. Eisenhower (R). In the next election, I voted for John F. Kennedy (D). In subsequent elections, I voted for Lynden B. Johnson (D) and Ronald W. Reagan (R). I respected their leadership qualities, not necessarily their parties, over their opponents in each instance.
History proves that both major political parties are populated by smart, good, and dedicated men and women. Also, the reverse is true.
Presidential elections are always of supreme significance. I will continue to evaluate candidates seeking evidence of exceptional leadership qualities. My probing will not stop until days before the election.
Your recent gratuitous reference to me as some sort of “reportage” monitor is needlessly provoking and simply wrong. That says much more about you than about me.
I do not appreciate the not so subtle innuendos. Those are totally unnecessary. This should end now.
Best Wishes.
Oh, come on....I think you're exaggerating about Hillary just a little bit
Wait, what? This is a role you have assumed many times, most recently above, railing after reading an editorial as something other, ... except then an actual piece of reporting is given that said the same thing. What's the problem? I mean, own it, dude; you don't get to provoke and then run away when called out.
>> That says much more about you than about me.
yeah, yeah, you always say this.
>> I do not appreciate the not so subtle innuendos. Those are totally unnecessary. This should end now.
Should I salute? What kind of innuendo? Why are you allowed to write what you write and then not get responded to? Huh?
Was not trying to be subtle.
L5b, has HRC falsified and distorted email? Tell all!
she didn't have to falsify or distort...just "lose" the ones she doesn't want anyone to see.
Any missing email have to do with the Foster murder, right.
(I read that Jeb! thinks BO uses too big words too.)
Now I gotta go back and see where I ever linked to a voluminous pdf. Maybe it was some pertinent economics paper? We could forbid actual non-investment research here and just go w/ gut opining, I suppose.
sorry, couldn't find anything attached to that clown Krugman
PS: I suspect they've already written it!
Yes, I continue voting for anticipated leadership qualities. I am ex-military and I treasure the benefits of committed leadership. I recognize that leaders are never perfect given the uncertainties that often exist at crucial decision moments. I have made judgment errors in some of my assessments, but I persist in my policy.
On my computer system, MFO rejects some of my posts because of a length constraint. Such was the case for my last posting attempt that defined more of my recent Presidential election choices.
I eliminated three choices in my original posting attempt to (1) overcome the posting length limit, and, (2) I felt these would be most contentious since they were rather current choices. I really do attempt to dampen emotional controversy; I guess I often fail that goal.
I deleted these three presidential choices from my original posting attempt. I voted for winner William Clinton (D, great economy). On the losing side of my presidential scorecard, I voted for John McCain (R, military hero), and Mitt Romney (R, proven success record). I’m sure this disclosure will solicit some angry outbursts, likely one from davidrmoran.
Moliere said: “It infuriates me to be wrong, when I know I’m right.” That thought applies to several guys on this MFO Board. I’m sure you never use it. I don’t.
Best Wishes.