The amount of new spending in the Budget fix, and the amount of borrowing in the budget fix.
...ooooo, good!
but no.
sorry.
Oooooooo fun I get to play my game.
94,300,000, Ricky Weeks' and Bill Hall's projected 2008 season strikeout totals...
47,300,000, The sum total of drinks consumed at Drinking Right, all time.
again, the second seems right.....but its not.
pft...
Amount of money going to the teachers in RUSD and amount of money going to the administrators in RUSD (respectively, I think)
That probably has nothing to do with the fact that one is in the heat of a competitive race which gives the media something vital about which to write and that the other is in cruise mode, having been annointed and being given a free ride.
The number of Google hits tells us nothing about how many of those hits are spurious, Drudge inspired rumors about Obama's past pastors or outright lies about his religion.
If all you're interested in is raw hits, let's do this. Type in "Obama scandal" and you get about 593,000 hits. Type in "McCain scandal" and you see a man who gets his due, scoring 1,810,00 hits.
There. You have your plurality.
Ya know, grumps....there was a Chicago radio sports announcer once who lamented about how the "Chicago media is too busy collectively licking Michael Jordan's testicles to ask him anything substantive."
(yeah, he got fned big for tthat one)
The number of Google news hits dont tell you about what's going on in the MSM, either.
Yup, you got me there, grumps.
SU, grumps has a good point. The Google "survey" or whatever you would call reveals little when you consider the status of both races.
Now, I am not arguing that Obama hasn't been a media darling since the day he stepped into national politics... he has.
As one point yes it is a point.
To not see that the media is head over heals in love with the Obamasiah is to ignore the obvious.
Logic class, kids. Google shows ~14,500 hits for the words "obama scandal" in quotes (meaning those two words together), while those two words without quotes (meaning any pages that have both words roughly nearby) gives 537,000+ hits. Lazy, inept journalists do this all the time. It means next to nothing. Context matters. Meaning matters. Get too worked up about Obama and you'll turn into Shark and people will shun you in the cafeteria because it's all you talk about.
Wait, what?
Are you saying that you should search by extra words to get context?
I disagree. Searching just by the candidate's name will give you a rough idea of how much he's being mentioned. Searching by context will give you a rough a idea of how much that candidate is being mentioned by certain types of web pages. In your case, my guess is more conservative sites would be hit by "obama scandal"
Now what would be *really* interesting is a web tool that allowed you to put in a list of sites, or a category of website and see the number of times that your search was mentioned on those sites. That would be more like what people are talking about here.
And "Hillary Clinton" (with the quotes) returns fewer news results than Obama and McCain. So what? This is RDW's sense of "bias"?
Clinton returns 147,000,000. If I remember math, that's more than both obama and mccain combined.
Foust fails at math.
"Clinton" alone has the problem that anything referring to Bill's presidency or Bill himself before her candidacy gets caught.
Jack, Fred quotes the numbers for Google's "News" hits. So did I. You didn't.
Foust, if there was really an example of a "straw man" you are pointing it out.
My point is not valid to only the hardcore deniers.
Obama is a freakin' rockstar and can do and say no wrong.
Any criticism is seen as an attack on his vision, age, race, what have you.
Its a joke.
Do you have anythiing substintive to contribute, or are you just trolling to make points about the finer points of methodology whie ignoring actual facts?
I what?
OK, Still, which actual facts are you talking about? Numbers coming out of Google mean what exactly? Evidence of bias? Frequency of appearance - in what?
how 'bout the post on the obama down below........been waiting for you to show up
"My point is not valid to only the hardcore deniers. Obama is a freakin' rockstar and can do and say no wrong. Any criticism is seen as an attack on his vision, age, race, what have you.
Its a joke."
I don't think the Wright controversy was seen or portrayed as that by anything, but the fringe.
What I find hilarious/ridiculous is that when Stephanopoulos (sp?) and Gibson got criticized for their tough questions of Obama. The reporting was all about how they were unfair to him, not about responses. Shouldn't the presumptive nominee have to demonstrate he can hold up to fire? I really prefer substantive questions, but with 19,000 debates already completed, what new will come of asking the same ones again? Grill the guy and see how he handles the heat instead of cozy warmness.
Commenting by HaloScan
