tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post7736654656997810653..comments2023-10-31T05:19:53.062-07:00Comments on A Natural Born Citizen...Orly?: Media Misrepresentation ?Orly Taitz, DDS Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09032528086295633238noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-47983282983476750692008-12-28T17:50:00.001-08:002008-12-28T17:50:00.001-08:00I agree it is confusing. So I put a bit more effor...I agree it is confusing. So I put a bit more effort into figuring out how to log in under my own account. Previously I was unable to do so. Sorry.Orly Taitz, DDS Esq.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09032528086295633238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-1636176058426609762008-12-23T14:31:00.001-08:002008-12-23T14:31:00.001-08:00See this is exactly the confusion. At the top is ...See this is exactly the confusion. At the top is says "Orly Taitz says...", but at the bottom is the name "Robert Stevens"Orly Taitz, DDS Esq.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09032528086295633238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-55091854144590711352008-12-23T13:51:00.001-08:002008-12-23T13:51:00.001-08:00F+
Grade inflation.F+<br /><br />Grade inflation.Orly Taitz, DDS Esq.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09032528086295633238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-60524306613203541902008-12-23T13:48:00.001-08:002008-12-23T13:48:00.001-08:00I did read the article. Based on the follow up qu...I did read the article. Based on the follow up questions and your answers I have gleaned - You say that the press made these outlandish claims, except you can't quote them. You never complained to the FCC, but you chastise them for not sanctioning the MSM, but the MSM media never actually said the things you claim they do.<br /><br />I know you are just giving me an F because I don't agree with you. Maybe Orly can sue you for that?<br /><br />Wait a minute, prove to me that you are actually the writer of that blog entry? I DEMAND proof.<br /><br />Am I getting the lingo down, yet?Orly Taitz, DDS Esq.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09032528086295633238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-68920865976364069852008-12-23T00:39:00.000-08:002008-12-23T00:39:00.000-08:00I linked to a couple of the media articles in my p...<I>I linked to a couple of the media articles in my post.</I><BR/><BR/>And <I>none</I> of them reported that 80% of Americans think that Obama will be the greatest president ever. If you are going to make representations about what the media has reported, the burden is on you to provide evidence to support your assertions.<BR/><BR/>But let's look at the actual assertions made in the Wall Street Journal article:<BR/><BR/><I>Overall, a majority of Americans are confident in Mr. Obama's ability to govern and unify the country, with many who didn't vote for him now seeing him in a positive light.</I><BR/><BR/>A fair reading of the data; Obama scored a higher percentage on these survey questions than he did in the national vote. So he must have changed some minds.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>The poll found that 73% of adults approve of the way he is handling the transition and his preparations for becoming president.</I><BR/><BR/>Accurate; see question 5.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Polling indicates that the nation is more unified around Mr. Obama than it was for either Bill Clinton in 1992 or George W. Bush in 2000.</I><BR/><BR/>Basically true; there's no question that disproves that, and questions 8-18 certainly support it.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Mr. Obama is viewed favorably by more Americans than ever, and three of four say they can relate to him as their president.</I><BR/><BR/>Accurate; see question 8.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Similarly, three of four say he has struck the right balance over how involved he should be in making policy before taking office.</I><BR/><BR/>Accurate; see question 17.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Two-thirds say they are generally pleased with the people he has appointed.</I><BR/><BR/>Accurate; see question 18a.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>The survey finds that Americans expect Mr. Obama will succeed on a wide spectrum of issues, including improving America's standing in the world, improving the economy, repairing infrastructure and pulling out of Iraq.</I><BR/><BR/>Accurate; see question 20.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Still, Mr. Obama is viewed favorably by two-thirds</I> [Note: NOT "80%+"] <I>of the public, up from 56% in mid-October.</I><BR/><BR/>Accurate; see question 8.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>The portion of Americans who see him in a negative light has fallen to 16%.</I><BR/><BR/>Accurate; see question 8.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Even 29% of McCain voters now see Mr. Obama positively, compared with 9% in October. Republicans, small-town voters and conservatives have all warmed up to the president-elect since Election Day.</I><BR/><BR/>Unknown; data provided not specified enough to confirm or data, but data provided tends to lean in that direction.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Nearly four in 10 people say they view Mr. Obama more favorably than they did on Election Day.</I><BR/><BR/>Accurate; see question 9.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>People are more confident about Mr. Obama's success than they were about Mr. Clinton's after his first election in 1992. That year, 13% said they were "extremely confident" that Mr. Clinton had the right set of personal characteristic to be president, compared with 33% who say the same of Mr. Obama.</I><BR/><BR/>Accurate; see question 13.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Mr. Clinton scored the same 13% for having the right set of goals and policies, compared with 30% for Mr. Obama.</I><BR/><BR/>Accurate; see question 16.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Just over half of Americans say they think 2009 will be a period of unity with Democrats and Republicans working together, compared with 27% who said the same at this point in 2004 after Mr. Bush was re-elected.</I><BR/><BR/>Accurate; see question 24.<BR/><BR/><BR/>... overall, I'd give the WSJ an A- for accurately reporting the poll results.<BR/><BR/>You get an F+.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09543278888292179903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-88897754469757375242008-12-22T19:20:00.000-08:002008-12-22T19:20:00.000-08:00I didn't think you could provide me with an actual...I didn't think you could provide me with an actual headline that used the 80% figure.<BR/><BR/>And again with the name calling. I understand by troll you mean someone who speaks up in a public forum who has the temerity to disagree with you. Can't we disagree without being disagreeable?<BR/><BR/>You really think the "N" word is acceptable in some situations? I'm surprised.<BR/><BR/>You never told me what the FCC said about your complaint about the misrepresentations you speak of. If you didn't, what exactly is your point? That they took no action on a complaint you never made?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13532410285353231792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-77576554268348513132008-12-22T17:39:00.000-08:002008-12-22T17:39:00.000-08:00Now its the breathless headlines you are talking a...<I>Now its the breathless headlines you are talking about, not the polls? </I><BR/><BR/>Did you really not read the article? The breathless headlines were describing the poll results. <BR/><BR/><I>Could you tell me which newspapers had headlines that said "More than 80% of people think Obama will be the greatest president ever"?</I><BR/><BR/>I linked to a couple of the media articles in my post. I guess you missed that. You can easily find more by doing a google search however. Or is that beyond your capabilities? I guess so. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>I'll even take an example if it isn't breathless. Unless those 80% headlines actually exist, I might have to call the FCC on you. I'd hate to think you make up a stat like 80% to mislead.</I><BR/><BR/>Why don't you try reading sometime? Do you need to be spoonfed? Or are you just a troll? <BR/><BR/><I>I'm not sure the FCC sanctions media for factual headlines, but maybe you have special pull with them.</I><BR/><BR/>I do not believe that the FCC sanctions the media for much except maybe a "costume malfunction" or someone missing a chance to bleep the "N word" from a listener's telephone call to a call-in radio show with a Caucasian host (this sort of language is perfectly acceptable if the show has a non-Caucasian host, however). <BR/><BR/>However, the reason the FCC took action in those cases was only in response to public lobbying. Nothing else. This is an exercise in education and consciousness raising. And it is a long slow painful process. <BR/><BR/>You are certainly an example of someone who needs to have their consciousness raised. Let's start with you.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Robert StevensOrly Taitz, DDS Esq.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09032528086295633238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-83135581670678179972008-12-22T10:36:00.000-08:002008-12-22T10:36:00.000-08:00Does all this talk about breathless filing of comp...Does all this talk about breathless filing of complaints and lawsuits get anyone else hot, hot, hot?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-60927907538749810512008-12-22T10:14:00.000-08:002008-12-22T10:14:00.000-08:00Now its the breathless headlines you are talking a...Now its the breathless headlines you are talking about, not the polls? <BR/><BR/>Could you tell me which newspapers had headlines that said "More than 80% of people think Obama will be the greatest president ever"? I'll even take an example if it isn't breathless. Unless those 80% headlines actually exist, I might have to call the FCC on you. I'd hate to think you make up a stat like 80% to mislead.<BR/><BR/>I do recall headlines saying that Obama had gotten approximately 53% of the vote and that the turnout was the highest since LBJ. I also recall headlines saying that he got 365 electoral votes. <BR/><BR/>I'm not sure the FCC sanctions media for factual headlines, but maybe you have special pull with them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-45736534246389580962008-12-22T08:59:00.000-08:002008-12-22T08:59:00.000-08:00I have to say I have questions about this poll. Or...<I> I have to say I have questions about this poll. Or do you think it is improper to question these things?</I><BR/><BR/>Question all you like. And when pose an intelligent one, it'll be a delightful change of pace.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-3579463711832004842008-12-22T07:10:00.000-08:002008-12-22T07:10:00.000-08:00"(ASK ONLY OF SAMPLE TYPE 2--CELL PHONE ONLY RESPO...<I>"(ASK ONLY OF SAMPLE TYPE 2--CELL PHONE ONLY RESPONDENTS)"</I><BR/><BR/>Of course, I could be misreading the polling instructions. That is certainly one interpretation. <BR/><BR/>My other objections also could be because of a misunderstanding of this poll. I think that is clutching at straws, but until we have further information, I have to say I have questions about this poll. Or do you think it is improper to question these things? You like to just accept them blindly, on faith alone? Well then we know the depth of your analytic abilities then, don't we? <BR/><BR/>I just wonder about the breathless headlines about how more than 80 percent of people think Obama will be the greatest president ever and he has already proven it, and that most McCain supporters support Obama. Maybe that is true, but I am not convinced. And this poll which is presented as evidence does not go a long way to convincing me. Sorry if I do not find it compelling. Perhaps you do, and that is your prerogative.<BR/><BR/>Robert StevensAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-74453818179428540522008-12-22T00:19:00.000-08:002008-12-22T00:19:00.000-08:00if I am so ill-informed, direct me to a site that ...<I>if I am so ill-informed, direct me to a site that shows that it is far more reasonable to reject all people with regular telephone service to have a representative poll.</I><BR/><BR/>Did you even read that line in <B>ALL CAPS BOLD</B> above question 1a.:<BR/><BR/>"(ASK ONLY OF SAMPLE TYPE 2--CELL PHONE ONLY RESPONDENTS)"<BR/><BR/>From that you infer only cell-phone-only responses were tabulated?<BR/><BR/>That kind of brilliant analysis, is, well, completely par for course for this site.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-22681395451300779942008-12-22T00:09:00.000-08:002008-12-22T00:09:00.000-08:00... and when, exactly, did the FCC become the Trut...... and when, exactly, did the FCC become the Truth (According to You) Squad? Can I sue Fox for every lie Bill O'Reily says?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-68091844685292578372008-12-21T21:00:00.000-08:002008-12-21T21:00:00.000-08:00So its not satire. You are serious. What has bee...So its not satire. You are serious. What has been the FCC's response.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-85997835901782817062008-12-21T20:30:00.000-08:002008-12-21T20:30:00.000-08:00Now, I get it, your article was satire. I'm sorry,...<I>Now, I get it, your article was satire. I'm sorry, it was too subtle.</I> <BR/><BR/>Now I get it. You are not only ignorant and have nothing constructive to contribute, but you are a troll as well. DNFTT.<BR/><BR/>Robert Stevens.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-59698557786960323112008-12-21T19:53:00.000-08:002008-12-21T19:53:00.000-08:00Now, I get it, your article was satire. I'm sorry...Now, I get it, your article was satire. I'm sorry, it was too subtle.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-27023426563782518352008-12-21T18:50:00.000-08:002008-12-21T18:50:00.000-08:00Hate to be a nit picker, but when you say many of ...<I>Hate to be a nit picker, but when you say many of "the other 80% were unable or unwilling to participate in the vote" you know you are talking but resident non-citizens, convicted felons, and the 25% of the population under the age of 18. There was a 60%+ turnout among eligible voters and close to 80% among registered voters.<BR/><BR/>What point exactly are you making about new born babies and resident aliens not voting? That the MSM should be polling toddlers about who'd they'd vote for.</I><BR/><BR/>I guess we understand about your reading comprehension now. Do you really think that was the main point of my post? Of course there are plenty of foreigners in the US ineligible to vote, and of course there are many people too young to vote, and a fair number of convicted felons ineligible to vote. <BR/><BR/>Do you really believe that was the subject of this post? What on earth? Are you really just confused? Or a troll? <BR/><BR/>Here is a hint. The title of the article usually has something to do with the theme of the article.<BR/><BR/>Robert StevensAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-53051393318280618362008-12-21T18:37:00.000-08:002008-12-21T18:37:00.000-08:00Hate to be a nit picker, but when you say many of ...Hate to be a nit picker, but when you say many of "the other 80% were unable or unwilling to participate in the vote" you know you are talking but resident non-citizens, convicted felons, and the 25% of the population under the age of 18. There was a 60%+ turnout among eligible voters and close to 80% among registered voters.<BR/><BR/>What point exactly are you making about new born babies and resident aliens not voting? That the MSM should be polling toddlers about who'd they'd vote for.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-44311847919821322622008-12-21T16:05:00.000-08:002008-12-21T16:05:00.000-08:00'But there were rumors (which might not have any s...<I>'But there were rumors (which might not have any substance to them of course) that the Murdoch media elements were told some weeks ago to back off on their Obama attacks.'<BR/><BR/>This site, breathlessly repeating every anti-Obama rumor on the Internet, regardless of implausibility? Never!</I><BR/><BR/>Some of it is plausible. Some of it is not. You have to sort the wheat from the chaff yourself. This is true of any good bit of legal investigation or detective work. Most of the rumors are going to be dead ends. But you need to examine it all to identify what is really useful. <BR/><BR/><I>'Now if you notice, even MSNBC has been attacking Obama, and Noam Chomsky has been making anti-Obama speeches and getting cheered. Didn't you read that part of the blog?'<BR/><BR/>So which is it? Does the Evil Obama Empire control all media, or not?</I><BR/><BR/>I personally do not subscribe to any such nonsense as a "media conspiracy". There might be a concentration of media interests in a small number of hands. There might be a growing ownership of US media by foreign interests. There might be a transition from old conventional style media to modern technologies and internet-based media. But I would need serious evidence to give any credence to claims the entire media is being secretly willfully manipulated. Claims of omnipotent cabals are usually nonsense. <BR/><BR/><I> "Consistency is all I seek."</I> <BR/><BR/>Then it appears that you shouldn't have voted for Obama. <BR/><BR/>Robert StevensOrly Taitz, DDS Esq.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09032528086295633238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-44013257192520978552008-12-21T15:58:00.000-08:002008-12-21T15:58:00.000-08:00Your reasoning as to why you think the survey migh...<I>Your reasoning as to why you think the survey might not be representative demonstrates severe ignorance on statistical methodologies used nowadays.</I> Please, if I am so ill-informed, direct me to a site that shows that it is far more reasonable to reject all people with regular telephone service to have a representative poll. I guess I am missing that reasoning somehow. Please show me where under-representing Hispanics by a large fraction is reasonable, and that under-representing those who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 produces a representative sample. I suppose you could argue that many of those who voted for Bush in 2000 or 2004 do not want to admit it now, and so will lie in the survey, so one should expect a bias. Ok, maybe that is true, but maybe not. Do you have any techniques for estimating the size of such a bias? I do not understand the reasoning you are employing to claim that these are all "modern" and reasonable sampling techniques. I was not aware that there was recently some revolution in surveying techniques in Statistics. Please direct me to a peer-reviewed academic review article that discusses this. I would be most interested. <BR/><BR/>Robert StevensOrly Taitz, DDS Esq.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09032528086295633238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-4177222822446455862008-12-21T14:43:00.000-08:002008-12-21T14:43:00.000-08:00But there were rumors (which might not have any su...<I>But there were rumors (which might not have any substance to them of course) that the Murdoch media elements were told some weeks ago to back off on their Obama attacks.</I><BR/><BR/>This site, breathlessly repeating every anti-Obama rumor on the Internet, regardless of implausibility? Never!<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Now if you notice, even MSNBC has been attacking Obama, and Noam Chomsky has been making anti-Obama speeches and getting cheered. Didn't you read that part of the blog?</I><BR/><BR/>So which is it? Does the Evil Obama Empire control all media, or not? "Consistency is all I seek."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-87233559154595863172008-12-21T14:37:00.000-08:002008-12-21T14:37:00.000-08:00There is no serious statistics being done in this ...<I>There is no serious statistics being done in this article.</I><BR/><BR/>Because an article doesn't report on the statistical methods used by the survey doesn't mean the survey itself isn't statistically sound.<BR/><BR/>Your reasoning as to why you think the survey might not be representative demonstrates severe ignorance on statistical methodologies used nowadays.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-62866851803209346312008-12-21T14:32:00.000-08:002008-12-21T14:32:00.000-08:00POP QUIZ. Turn on Fox right now. Time how long it ...<I>POP QUIZ. Turn on Fox right now. Time how long it takes before there's an anti-Obama comment.</I> There are of course anti-Obama comments on Fox, particularly now. But there were rumors (which might not have any substance to them of course) that the Murdoch media elements were told some weeks ago to back off on their Obama attacks. Now if you notice, even MSNBC has been attacking Obama, and Noam Chomsky has been making anti-Obama speeches and getting cheered. Didn't you read that part of the blog? <BR/><BR/>Robert StevensOrly Taitz, DDS Esq.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09032528086295633238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-38837763049439118892008-12-21T14:27:00.000-08:002008-12-21T14:27:00.000-08:00I don't which online school gave you a degree in s...<I>I don't which online school gave you a degree in statistics, but with that kind of shoddy analysis, they should demand it back.</I><BR/><BR/>I am just quoting what is in the media and in the poll itself. There is no serious statistics being done in this article. If you think there are serious statistics here, then you do not know what statistics really are. <BR/><BR/>I am questioning whether the sample used is representative. I am suggesting that the results of the poll were selectively reported. That is all. <BR/><BR/>Robert StevensOrly Taitz, DDS Esq.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09032528086295633238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-59443515973217045652008-12-21T14:19:00.000-08:002008-12-21T14:19:00.000-08:00For heavens sake, the point you make about the low...<I>For heavens sake, the point you make about the low percentage of Americans voting for Obama is utterly meaningless. <BR/>No candidate for president ever gets a very large percentage of the total population.</I> True, but if you were paying attention, that was not the main point of this post. It was just an observation that only about 1/5 people in the US voted for Obama. A lot of people forget that, however. Many of the other 80 percent of the people were unable or unwilling to participate in the vote, but it is worth remembering that he was supported by a small number, even if that small number is greater than the small number who supported Bush. But anyway, that is not the main point of the post. <BR/><BR/>Robert Stevens.Orly Taitz, DDS Esq.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09032528086295633238noreply@blogger.com