United States Presidential Election 2008 - Official Discussion Thread

Originally posted by KidRock
Economics: The social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.

Murdoch's business deals with the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services..and from the billions of dollars he has made I would say he knows this well. An authority is just someone who is an expert in the subject. I dont know anybody who say say Murdoch is not an expert in the things above.

And on your point of bias. Would former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker be an authority if he came out and said "McCains plan sucks"?

You commit the logical fallacy of confusing correlation with causation; that because Murdoch is wealthy that he must know the inner workings of the economy and is an expert on it. The two don't necessarily go hand in hand.

Again, you're free to present him as authoritative if you wish, but then you lose the right to complain when someone brings up any wealthy person who has a predetermined bias towards the liberal agenda, your logic says that all wealthy people are authoritative just because they're wealthy regardless of bias.

I don't know who Paul Volcker is. If he is bias, then no he isn't a valid authority. Bias outweighs knowledge because bias makes on more likely to misrepresent the facts to be advantageous to whoever they're bias towards.

Murdock =/= economist

to try and conflate a media magnate with a scholar is silly.

His voice is worth much more than those only spuriously involved in the economy, to be sure. His voice is worth nothing compared to those who dedicate their lives to understanding economic policy (Though, I am just jumping in here, I can't say for sure they would disagree with him, just that they are more valuable).

Originally posted by BackFire
You commit the logical fallacy of confusing correlation with causation; that because Murdoch is wealthy that he must know the inner workings of the economy and is an expert on it. The two don't necessarily go hand in hand.

Again, you're free to present him as authoritative if you wish, but then you lose the right to complain when someone brings up any wealthy person who has a predetermined bias towards the liberal agenda, your logic says that all wealthy people are authoritative just because they're wealthy regardless of bias.

I don't know who Paul Volcker is. If he is bias, then no he isn't a valid authority. Bias outweighs knowledge because bias makes on more likely to misrepresent the facts to be advantageous to whoever they're bias towards.

No, you're simply not reading my posts I guess. I am not saying Murdoch is an authority because he has money. Paris Hilton has money..would that make her knowledge the same as Murdoch's? Obviously not. So no, if some wealthy person with no credentials in the business or economic fields comes out and makes a statement on their economic plans I have the right to argue it all I want.

What I am saying is Murdoch is an expert in the subject of economics because he knows how to make money through economics and has a ton of experience in the field and working in it (his businesses dealing with production, distribution and consumption of goods..economics). Just because he doesnt have a PhD in Economics doesn't mean he isnt an expert in the field.

I am reading your posts, you're simply making a shit argument.

Again, going down this route means you lose the right to argue against the owner of MSNBC saying that McCain's plan is shitty because he's just as authoritative as Murdoch because he's wealthy from running a business. And that's all that matters to you apparently. You are ignoring bias and that's a foolish thing to do.

Point is, he may be able to be a authority if he didn't have an obvious bias that negates the objectivity (which is essentially if one is to be an authority) of his claims. But he does have such a bias, so he cannot be an authority - fact.

Bias trumps knowledge. Example: say there's a cop and he knows every single law and procedure that one could know, but he is bias against minorities. If this becomes shown it outweighs his knowledge and he wouldn't be able to continue to be a police officer - an authority - because of his bias.

Originally posted by BackFire
I am reading your posts, you're simply making a shit argument.

Again, going down this route means you lose the right to argue against the owner of MSNBC saying that McCain's plan is shitty because he's just as authoritative as Murdoch because he's wealthy from running a business. And that's all that matters to you apparently. You are ignoring bias and that's a foolish thing to do.

Did the president of MSNBC start up multiple companies and run them using principles of economics? If he did then sure he would be an authority figure since he..KNOWS ECONOMICS and is an expert on it.

Originally posted by BackFire

Point is, he may be able to be a authority if he didn't have an obvious bias that negates the objectivity (which is essentially if one is to be an authority) of his claims. But he does have such a bias, so he cannot be an authority - fact.

Where is Murdochs bias? Can you point me to a quote of his where he directly endorses McCain? And even if he did endorse McCain maybe its because his expertise tells him hes the better candidate for the economy.

But I would like a quote from Murdoch showing his bias.

[/B][/QUOTE]

The News Corp owned New York Post, presumably at the behest of Murdoch, has endorsed McCain-Palin.

Originally posted by KidRock
Did the president of MSNBC start up multiple companies and run them using principles of economics? If he did then sure he would be an authority figure since he..KNOWS ECONOMICS and is an expert on it.

Yes, he runs multiple companies. However he is a liberal and has an obvious bias. So he can't be an authority.

Originally posted by KidRock
Where is Murdochs bias? Can you point me to a quote of his where he directly endorses McCain? And even if he did endorse McCain maybe its because his expertise tells him hes the better candidate for the economy.

But I would like a quote from Murdoch showing his bias.

Murdoch's bias is in him being a staunch conservative. He's inherently going to support republican ideals simply because he subscribes to them.

Here is him admitting to some bias -- http://petty-larseny.blogspot.com/2007/02/fox-admits-its-bias.html

That he tried to shape opinion about the Iraq war through his news source.

So once more, he may know plenty about the economy, but he's not objective. I don't trust him because of his inherent bias towards conservative viewpoints, just as you would likely not trust someone who inherently leans left.

Originally posted by BackFire

Murdoch's bias is in him being a staunch conservative. He's inherently going to support republican ideals simply because he subscribes to them.

Here is him admitting to some bias -- http://petty-larseny.blogspot.com/2007/02/fox-admits-its-bias.html

That he tried to shape opinion about the Iraq war through his news source.

So once more, he may know plenty about the economy, but he's not objective. I don't trust him because of his inherent bias towards conservative viewpoints, just as you would likely not trust someone who inherently leans left. [/B]

What? So only independents can be authority's on the subject of economics now? One would be pretty hard pressed to find anyone then who can be an authority on a subject.

Only fair minded people can be authorities. If it's shown that someone is incapable of being objective because of their politics then they can't be authorities. Not necessarily only independents, but someone who has shown that he or she can put aside their politics when discussing something and be objective.

And yes, that's exactly right. Authorities aren't abundant on most topics. Economists are authorities because they've actually been educated on the topic and make a living knowing what they're talking about. Wealthy businessmen, not necessarily.

Oprah supports Obama. Oprah is a billionaire. Obviously his economic plan is better. 😬

Find an actual economist supporting McCain, and there are probably those out there, and you'd be on more solid ground. Find an independent economist supporting solely McCain's economic plan and not necessarily the candidate and you may have a solid point.

The fact of the matter is that both of the candidates economic plans aren't fantastic, or particularly fiscally responsible.

Obama's will essentially simply amount to a massive redistribution of wealth - whether or not you think this is fair or just, support or denigrate it, it's difficult to avoid that it is what it is. If I'm to understand correctly he intends to maintain the Bush tax cuts for those earning under $250,000 (or singles on $200,000) while increasing taxes on those earning above. On the business side, he has been reported to being open to lowering corporate tax rate, however his plans currently intend to raise capital gains tax.

Meanwhile with a raft of refundable tax credits, which will increase the amount of people who pay zero tax and/or actually receive a tax refund, as well as an abundance of what will presumably costly social programmes, there is no way that these changes in taxation can pay for everything. The US debt therefore increasing.

McCain's will essentially maintain the Bush tax cuts, while cutting an abundance of other taxes; and offering some similar tax credits to those Obama is promising. Which will amount to... the US debt therefore increasing. Supply-side economics has never been proven to work as far as I'm aware, and there are economic studies that show that government spending can spur economic growth as well. Who'd have thunk it.

AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them "lazy," "violent," responsible for their own troubles.

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race

Time to play the "white guilt" card to get some votes.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Oprah supports Obama. Oprah is a billionaire. Obviously his economic plan is better. 😬

Find an actual economist supporting McCain, and there are probably those out there, and you'd be on more solid ground. Find an independent economist supporting solely McCain's economic plan and not necessarily the candidate and you may have a solid point.

The fact of the matter is that both of the candidates economic plans aren't fantastic, or particularly fiscally responsible.

Obama's will essentially simply amount to a massive redistribution of wealth - whether or not you think this is fair or just, support or denigrate it, it's difficult to avoid that it is what it is. If I'm to understand correctly he intends to maintain the Bush tax cuts for those earning under $250,000 (or singles on $200,000) while increasing taxes on those earning above. On the business side, he has been reported to being open to lowering corporate tax rate, however his plans currently intend to raise capital gains tax.

Meanwhile with a raft of refundable tax credits, which will increase the amount of people who pay zero tax and/or actually receive a tax refund, as well as an abundance of what will presumably costly social programmes, there is no way that these changes in taxation can pay for everything. The US debt therefore increasing.

McCain's will essentially maintain the Bush tax cuts, while cutting an abundance of other taxes; and offering some similar tax credits to those Obama is promising. Which will amount to... the US debt therefore increasing. Supply-side economics has never been proven to work as far as I'm aware, and there are economic studies that show that government spending can spur economic growth as well. Who'd have thunk it.

Exactly right. Neither have the greatest grasp on the economy.

I think it's going to end up being a mistake for McCain not picking Romney - whose perceived was the economy. Would have helped him immensely, especially in this environment.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
YouTube video

Fannie May and Freddie Mac. McCain advocated regulating them 3 years ago, because the goofy loans that they were offering everybody would backfire. And he said that taxpayers would end up bailing them out.

And Obama is the 2nd most paid senator from these places, and has their CEO's as friends.

Why is this not news?

Oh right, because FOX is that channel that's biased. 🙄

Talk about bias, NBC (new Barrack channel) is already letting us know that if Obama looses, it's only because of racisim: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26803840

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Talk about bias, NBC (new Barrack channel) is already letting us know that if Obama looses, it's only because of racisim: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26803840

Funny, that isn't what the article says at all.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Nobody bothered to comment on the vid, eh?

Fannie May and Freddie Mac. McCain advocated regulating them 3 years ago, because the goofy loans that they were offering everybody would backfire. And he said that taxpayers would end up bailing them out.

And Obama is the 2nd most paid senator from these places, and has their CEO's as friends.

Why is this not news?

Oh right, because FOX is that channel that's biased. 🙄

Talk about bias, NBC (new Barrack channel) is already letting us know that if Obama looses, it's only because of racisim: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26803840

It's nice to be in the supposed majority, isn't it? Until it's not, at least.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Funny, that isn't what the article says at all.

That was sarcasm.

Originally posted by Devil King
It's nice to be in the supposed majority, isn't it? Until it's not, at least.

Again, no comment on the issue?

McCain warned about Fannie/Freddie a full 3 years ago, and Obama is the 2nd highest on the list of those senators who've recieved funds from them. (a 20 year survey, and he's only been there 3 years)

Also, the former CEO is an advisor to Obama.

Comments?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Nobody bothered to comment on the vid, eh?

Fannie May and Freddie Mac. McCain advocated regulating them 3 years ago, because the goofy loans that they were offering everybody would backfire. And he said that taxpayers would end up bailing them out.

And Obama is the 2nd most paid senator from these places, and has their CEO's as friends.

Why is this not news?

Oh right, because FOX is that channel that's biased. 🙄

Talk about bias, NBC (new Barrack channel) is already letting us know that if Obama looses, it's only because of racisim: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26803840

And we're now 3 for 3 avoiding the Fannie/Freddie issue!

Again, McCain warned about Fannie/Freddie a full 3 years ago, and Obama is the 2nd highest on the list of those senators who've recieved funds from them. (a 20 year survey, and he's only been there 3 years)

Also, the former CEO is an advisor to Obama.

Comments?

Way to swallow Republican talking points.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/721/

Originally posted by KidRock
I wonder why people continue to attack Fox yet there is nothing at all wrong with news coming out of MSNBC.

Oh thats right..cause they are evil republicans.

What really disgusts me is how you, like all republicans, completely ignored that website (my point), and rather than address it, come up with this lie that I have some sort of bias against republicans.

If you reply to this without addressing the website or, more importantly, it's contents, then I have no reason to discuss with you, as it'll prove your obvious dodge from the truth.