[X] My Assistant

Ed Schultz is a fucking moron and a liar.

You say that about everyone you disagree with.

This post has been edited by BradRepko: Jul 31 2010, 00:17

Ed Schultz is a fucking moron and a liar.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I don't quote polls whose results are 7% lower than the polls everyone else on my network is quoting and act like even those overestimate public sentiment.

This post has been edited by Boggyb: Jul 31 2010, 00:17

I don't quote polls whose results are 7% lower than the polls everyone else on my network is quoting and act like even those overestimate public sentiment.

You have a network? (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

I do :3

CBS cares.

And Brad ignores my completely legitimate point.

And Brad ignores my completely legitimate point.

You're talking about someone using bad polling data as fact, and yet you don't even show the proof to help back up the accusation. While I don't doubt that he probably does use some misleading polls and information sources, all the major 24 hour American news networks do that these days. There are so many different sets of facts and figures out there from multitudes of sources, and many of these figures often directly contradict another set of figures. Besides, polls in general are misleading because they only look at a fraction of the actual population.

People can't even agree on what reality is anymore; the news in this country is so different the perception of each occurrence is skewered a different way depending on which network you listen to. There are still people out there, some holding political office, who believe that BP is the victim in the Gulf of Mexico oil crisis.

This post has been edited by BradRepko: Jul 31 2010, 00:44

Anyone who doesn't get their news from The Daily Show is a stupid person.

Anyone who doesn't get their news from The Daily Show is a stupid person.

How about that beard?

I think he looks like a real mensch.

You're talking about someone using bad polling data as fact, and yet you don't even show the proof to help back up the accusation.

Was it yesterday or the day before that the judge placed a temporary injunction on Arizona's law? Go on MSNBC's website and watch the shows for that day. He quotes a poll that says 55% of Americans supported the law. Chris Matthews and another guy (not Olbermann) quote a poll that 62% of Americans supported the law.
Is the poll he quoted inherently wrong? No, but quoting the one that most closely represents your opinion (or in this case least torches his opinion) shows a complete lack of journalist integrity and is a lie (of omission at least. It is also a lie of misrepresentation).

WTF is wrong with my random battle EXP? It's so low.

WTF is wrong with my random battle EXP? It's so low.

You checked the toplists?

I wish Fred Durst throatfucked himself to death.

It'd be nice. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/happy.gif)

Was it yesterday or the day before that the judge placed a temporary injunction on Arizona's law? Go on MSNBC's website and watch the shows for that day. He quotes a poll that says 55% of Americans supported the law. Chris Matthews and another guy (not Olbermann) quote a poll that 62% of Americans supported the law.
Is the poll he quoted inherently wrong? No, but quoting the one that most closely represents your opinion (or in this case least torches his opinion) shows a complete lack of journalist integrity and is a lie (of omission at least. It is also a lie of misrepresentation).

Doesn't he do his radio show before he goes on air on MSNBC? So it's possible he doesn't have time to watch the other shows before he goes on to check which polls they used. I've also seen him use polls that prove his point less than the ones other MSNBC shows are using. Sometimes, I've even seen him use multiple polls with the facts and figures.

Anyway, explain to me exactly how a poll that 55% of Americans being in favor really helps him all that much more than one that shows 61% of Americans are in favor of it. Either way, both polls say the same thing, more Americans disagree with him than agree. The example you used was terrible, because the poll he used didn't help his argument any more than the other one would have.

All that being said, I like Olbermann better.

This post has been edited by BradRepko: Jul 31 2010, 01:04

Anyway, explain to me exactly how a poll that 55% of Americans being in favor really helps him all that much more than one that shows 61% of Americans are in favor of it. Either way, both polls say the same thing, more Americans disagree with him than agree.

You can spin a poll whose results are 55% with a margin of error of approximately 3% as representing the "right". (It's wouldn't be easy, but it could be done.)
You can't spin a poll whose results are 62% as only representing a single segment of the American populous.

(or in this case least torches his opinion)

The example you used was terrible, because the poll he used didn't help his argument any more than the other one would have.

(IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

A majority is still a majority. It doesn't matter if it's 61% or 55%; it still means his opinion is disagreed with by the majority. Besides, for all I know, the poll he used could have been more accurate and have questioned more people. Or it could have been from a more reliable source. You can't actually say he is was purposely misleading people unless you can show that the poll he used was somehow less credible than the one his colleagues were using. Also, what context was he using said poll in. What point was he trying to prove in showing it?

This post has been edited by BradRepko: Jul 31 2010, 01:26

A majority is still a majority. It doesn't matter if it's 61% or 55%; it still means his opinion is disagreed with by the majority.

7% is significant.

Besides, for all I know, the poll he used could have been more accurate and have questioned more people. Or it could have been from a more reliable source.

Both were from sources I would consider credible.

You can't actually say he is was purposely misleading people unless you can show that the poll he used was somehow less credible than the one his colleagues were using.

If you have two pieces of data and intentionally only mention the one that least disagrees with you, that is misleading.

Also, what context was he using said poll in. What point was he trying to prove in showing it?

I don't recall. He sure as hell wasn't saying that people disagree with him. Everything I've ever seen of him makes me think that he thinks that only a fringe minority disagrees with him.

If you have two pieces of data and intentionally only mention the one that least disagrees with you, that is misleading.

Doesn't he do his radio show before he goes on air on MSNBC? So it's possible he doesn't have time to watch the other shows before he goes on to check which polls they used. I've also seen him use polls that prove his point less than the ones other MSNBC shows are using. Sometimes, I've even seen him use multiple polls with the facts and figures.

Anyway, why the fuck are we arguing about Ed Schultz anyway? All I said was he had more faith in people than I do. It sounds to me like the poll he used that one day is a reflection of that very sentiment I had stated before, he has more faith people.

Anyone who doesn't get their news from The Daily Show is a stupid person.

I get my entertainment from the Daily Show. If I become vaguely aware of the world around me as a result, that's nice, but purely accidental.