DNC

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

looks like someone is bitter that the romney post convention bounce was only one point...

pom-poms.

troll

Awesome, it's been awhile since you've called someone a troll.

cincybearcat

London Bridge wrote:

Both conventions are fluffing pep rallies. If that's not your thing, don't watch them.

Solution = change the channel

That's an interesting argument. Because guess what, people watch it. I can't make them all change the channel. It ends up effecting who I get as president. And I don't want them picked because of nonsense.

Changing the channel and ignoring it doesn't do anything except keep my blood pressure down a bit. Ignoring reality never helped.

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

blackredyellow wrote:

Right, I don't disagree with that, but we've seen such personal attracts on her from the right.

they would trash Mary, the mother of jesus, if they did not feel obligated to show her a tiny bit of respect because of her position.

Really? What;s next, going to call the GOP nazis?

javis el errante

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

peacefrompaul wrote:

How did that go tonight? :corn:

So far pretty well. Much higher ratings and Michelle obama's speech was explosive. Even the fox news twerps begrudgingly admitted it was the best first lady speech they'd ever seen.

And Julien Castro was amazing.

Laura Ingram live tweeted her own pants-shitting. It was pathetic.

The messages were loud and clear. Even Matt Barber was reduced to Name calling as he whined about "fast women and slow speeches." except when Michelle finished, she got 28,000 tweets. Mitt only got 14,000 for his.

Take from that what you will.

Julian Castro speech was indeed amazing, as much as Michelle Obama's, I was really moved by Castro family story, quite inspiring...

brianlux wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

I'm sorry, did someone say, "Get a job and buy a nice car asshole"?

Yes, someone did, and I didn't understand either... are cars that fulfilling? who knew?

blackredyellow

inlet13 wrote:

blackredyellow wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

She was great last night. A fantastic first lady.

People who trash Michelle Obama lose all credibility for anything else they say. If you have bad things to say about her, you are either way too hyper-partisan, or just an idiot. She is smart, classy, and does good things for childhood obesity and military families.

And it goes across political parties. I couldn't stand George Bush, but I was impressed every time I saw Laura Bush speak, and when I read about some of her initiatives with literacy, etc.

The far right talking heads who bash Michelle Obama should be ashamed. If their daughters ended up anything like her, they'd be the proudest parents in the world (and rightly so).

I watched part of it - the last 15 min or so. I didn't like it. Nothing against her, but I didn't think the substance was very good at all. I think she's a good speaker - she showed that - so she's got that going for her. I think most lawyers are good speakers though. I think she comes across a bit cocky. Anyway, all that doesn't matter, her underlying points were not good. She's was dodging the real issues. But... In the end though, it doesn't matter. She's the first lady - she's not running for anything. This isn't the prom queen. So, who cares?

Analysis on first-ladies is kinda funny though, so I'll keep it going - unlike Michelle, I think Laura Bush was not a very good speaker. I didn't really like her and I don't like Mrs. Obama at all. I also didn't like Hillary Clinton. I dislike them for different reasons, however. With Laura Bush, I didn't like her librarian approach to everything - she seemed out of touch. With Mrs. Obama, I think she's power-hungry, yet passive aggressive. She seems to have this sense of entitlement. Hillary Clinton is also obviously power-hungry and to me, she came across as just horribly fake.

I can't think of a first lady that I thought - wow, that one's normal. They all are off... just like their husbands.

Sorry, I quit reading after "she was dodging the real issues". She's the first lady for chrissakes! Do you really want Michelle Obama or Ann Romney or Laura Bush out there speaking about political issues, and giving policy speeches?

gimmesometruth27

cincybearcat wrote:

Awesome, it's been awhile since you've called someone a troll.

do you feel left out or something?

if you don't add to the conversation and simply post attacks you are gonna get called a troll. plenty of people think it, i just have the gall to say it openly.

gimmesometruth27

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

blackredyellow wrote:

Right, I don't disagree with that, but we've seen such personal attracts on her from the right.

they would trash Mary, the mother of jesus, if they did not feel obligated to show her a tiny bit of respect because of her position.

Really? What;s next, going to call the GOP nazis?

no, but i will call them hypocrites. i will call them stingy with regard to human rights. they want them all and want to take them away from others... they want to say they want government out of peoples' lives, but then they say they are gonna make a woman carry the child of a rapist to term, and they are gonna deny gay people the rights that all of the rest of us have. they want to participate in voter suppression, which thankfully the courts are throwing out lately. the gop has nothing to run on so they attack the first lady. so yeah.

Johnny Abruzzo

Prez speech tomorrow moved indoors. Jeez, it's gonna rain in Charlotte? Who would've guessed? :roll: :fp:

Also it was really stupid to have the speech in a place called "Bank of America Stadium" - really guys?


Really loved Michelle's speech. She has VASTLY IMPROVED as a speaker. Check out some stuff from spring 2008; she was cringe worthy and very preachy. She was magnificent last night and these "president" guys will have a tough time surpassing her performance.

London Bridge

cincybearcat wrote:

London Bridge wrote:

Both conventions are fluffing pep rallies. If that's not your thing, don't watch them.

Solution = change the channel

That's an interesting argument. Because guess what, people watch it. I can't make them all change the channel. It ends up effecting who I get as president. And I don't want them picked because of nonsense.

Changing the channel and ignoring it doesn't do anything except keep my blood pressure down a bit. Ignoring reality never helped.

I would rather call it an option instead of an argument. I have watched a majority of the convention coverage. Most of it is nonsense, but it's good see how each party carries themselves. I have a big interest in this election because I've been out of work for a year. You as an individual have no control with what occurs at the convention. However, you can vote for who you think is best to lead our country for the next 4 years.

inlet13

blackredyellow wrote:

Sorry, I quit reading after "she was dodging the real issues". She's the first lady for chrissakes! Do you really want Michelle Obama or Ann Romney or Laura Bush out there speaking about political issues, and giving policy speeches?

I think you hit the nail on the head. Why is she or Ann Romney or anyone other than those running for office out there giving policy speeches on anything related to the topic of governmental policy? That's pretty much my point. They really probably shouldn't be giving speeches at all. It's not necessary. They aren't queens. If they do, it should be about their relationship, in my opinion. But, even that is selling out your relationship.

They are married to the President - that's it. Same goes if we had a female President for her male counterpart. Yet, here we have these first ladies talking policy as if it's a cabinet position.

I mean - are you going to argue Mrs. Obama didn't bring up policy at all? I mean I know I heard "fair share" several times in the few minutes I listened. Sorry - but, that's when I tune out. She's not elected, nor running. I don't need nor want to hear her opinion on policy.

Johnny Abruzzo

I didn't expect her to really discuss issues. That's the president's job.

I'm just glad she didn't yell at me for failing to eating vegetables with dinner last night.

"Mr. Abruzzo, that dinner you just ate was insufficiently nutritious! I am stopping by tomorrow to fix up your garden young man."

dignin

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics ... n=20120903

Democrats Unleashed Some 'Dubious Or Misleading Claims,' Fact Checkers Say


by MARK MEMMOTT



The scene Tuesday night at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.
Just as they did during the Republican National Convention, independent fact checkers spent the first day of the Democratic National Convention listening for claims that don't add up — and found them.


— FactCheck.org says it heard "a number of dubious or misleading claims" from the Democrats who spoke on stage Tuesday in Charlotte, N.C. Among the problems it found:

— "The keynote speaker and others claimed the Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, would raise taxes on the 'middle class.' He has promised he won't. Democrats base their claim on a study that doesn't necessarily lead to that conclusion."

— "The keynote speaker, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, also said there have been 4.5 million 'new jobs' under Obama. The fact is the economy has regained only 4 million of the 4.3 million jobs lost since Obama took office."

— "A Democratic governor said Romney 'left his state 47th out of 50 in job growth.' Actually, Massachusetts went from 50th in job creation during Romney's first year to 28th in his final year."

— "Multiple speakers repeated a claim that the Ryan/Romney Medicare plan would cost seniors $6,400 a year. That's a figure that applied to Ryan's 2011 budget plan, but his current proposal (the one Romney embraces) is far more generous."

— The Washington Post's The Fact Checker cites some of the same problems as FactCheck highlighted. And it points to this statement from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada: "We learned that he [Mitt Romney] pays a lower tax rate than middle-class families."

The Fact Checker writes that:

"For all the rhetoric about high taxes in the United States, most Americans pay a relatively small percentage of their income in taxes. Romney had an effective rate of 13.9 percent in 2010 and 15.4 percent in 2011. That gives him a higher rate than 80 percent of taxpayers if only taxes on a tax return are counted and puts him just about in the middle of all taxpayers if payroll taxes paid by employers are included."

— PolitiFact appears to have just begun its analysis. In its initial take on the night's talk, it gives Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick a "half true" rating for his statement about the state being "47th in the nation in job creation" when Romney left office there.

As for first lady Michelle Obama's address to the convention, the fact checkers don't seem to have any faults to find.

You can find all our posts about fact checks of the Republican and Democratic conventions here.

Note at 11:55 a.m. ET: Earlier, we included a reference to FactCheck.org's analysis of comments made by Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina. The analysis, it turns out, was based on Clyburn's prepared remarks — and he has yet to deliver them. So we've removed that paragraph from the post above.

blackredyellow

dignin wrote:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/09/05/160591872/democrats-unleashed-some-dubious-or-misleading-claims-fact-checkers-say?utm_source=NPR&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=20120903

Democrats Unleashed Some 'Dubious Or Misleading Claims,' Fact Checkers Say


by MARK MEMMOTT



The scene Tuesday night at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.
Just as they did during the Republican National Convention, independent fact checkers spent the first day of the Democratic National Convention listening for claims that don't add up — and found them.


— FactCheck.org says it heard "a number of dubious or misleading claims" from the Democrats who spoke on stage Tuesday in Charlotte, N.C. Among the problems it found:

— "The keynote speaker and others claimed the Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, would raise taxes on the 'middle class.' He has promised he won't. Democrats base their claim on a study that doesn't necessarily lead to that conclusion."

— "The keynote speaker, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, also said there have been 4.5 million 'new jobs' under Obama. The fact is the economy has regained only 4 million of the 4.3 million jobs lost since Obama took office."

— "A Democratic governor said Romney 'left his state 47th out of 50 in job growth.' Actually, Massachusetts went from 50th in job creation during Romney's first year to 28th in his final year."

— "Multiple speakers repeated a claim that the Ryan/Romney Medicare plan would cost seniors $6,400 a year. That's a figure that applied to Ryan's 2011 budget plan, but his current proposal (the one Romney embraces) is far more generous."

— The Washington Post's The Fact Checker cites some of the same problems as FactCheck highlighted. And it points to this statement from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada: "We learned that he [Mitt Romney] pays a lower tax rate than middle-class families."

The Fact Checker writes that:

"For all the rhetoric about high taxes in the United States, most Americans pay a relatively small percentage of their income in taxes. Romney had an effective rate of 13.9 percent in 2010 and 15.4 percent in 2011. That gives him a higher rate than 80 percent of taxpayers if only taxes on a tax return are counted and puts him just about in the middle of all taxpayers if payroll taxes paid by employers are included."

— PolitiFact appears to have just begun its analysis. In its initial take on the night's talk, it gives Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick a "half true" rating for his statement about the state being "47th in the nation in job creation" when Romney left office there.

As for first lady Michelle Obama's address to the convention, the fact checkers don't seem to have any faults to find.

You can find all our posts about fact checks of the Republican and Democratic conventions here.

Note at 11:55 a.m. ET: Earlier, we included a reference to FactCheck.org's analysis of comments made by Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina. The analysis, it turns out, was based on Clyburn's prepared remarks — and he has yet to deliver them. So we've removed that paragraph from the post above.

Unfortunately it's pretty well established that whenever you hear statistics and figures in a political speech, it's probably bullshit.

I don't get why campaigns can play so loose with the facts... when news organizations can factcheck within minutes of a speech, politicians just keep repeating and repeating, even after being called on it.

dignin

blackredyellow wrote:

dignin wrote:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/09/05/160591872/democrats-unleashed-some-dubious-or-misleading-claims-fact-checkers-say?utm_source=NPR&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=20120903

Democrats Unleashed Some 'Dubious Or Misleading Claims,' Fact Checkers Say


by MARK MEMMOTT



The scene Tuesday night at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.
Just as they did during the Republican National Convention, independent fact checkers spent the first day of the Democratic National Convention listening for claims that don't add up — and found them.


— FactCheck.org says it heard "a number of dubious or misleading claims" from the Democrats who spoke on stage Tuesday in Charlotte, N.C. Among the problems it found:

— "The keynote speaker and others claimed the Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, would raise taxes on the 'middle class.' He has promised he won't. Democrats base their claim on a study that doesn't necessarily lead to that conclusion."

— "The keynote speaker, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, also said there have been 4.5 million 'new jobs' under Obama. The fact is the economy has regained only 4 million of the 4.3 million jobs lost since Obama took office."

— "A Democratic governor said Romney 'left his state 47th out of 50 in job growth.' Actually, Massachusetts went from 50th in job creation during Romney's first year to 28th in his final year."

— "Multiple speakers repeated a claim that the Ryan/Romney Medicare plan would cost seniors $6,400 a year. That's a figure that applied to Ryan's 2011 budget plan, but his current proposal (the one Romney embraces) is far more generous."

— The Washington Post's The Fact Checker cites some of the same problems as FactCheck highlighted. And it points to this statement from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada: "We learned that he [Mitt Romney] pays a lower tax rate than middle-class families."

The Fact Checker writes that:

"For all the rhetoric about high taxes in the United States, most Americans pay a relatively small percentage of their income in taxes. Romney had an effective rate of 13.9 percent in 2010 and 15.4 percent in 2011. That gives him a higher rate than 80 percent of taxpayers if only taxes on a tax return are counted and puts him just about in the middle of all taxpayers if payroll taxes paid by employers are included."

— PolitiFact appears to have just begun its analysis. In its initial take on the night's talk, it gives Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick a "half true" rating for his statement about the state being "47th in the nation in job creation" when Romney left office there.

As for first lady Michelle Obama's address to the convention, the fact checkers don't seem to have any faults to find.

You can find all our posts about fact checks of the Republican and Democratic conventions here.

Note at 11:55 a.m. ET: Earlier, we included a reference to FactCheck.org's analysis of comments made by Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina. The analysis, it turns out, was based on Clyburn's prepared remarks — and he has yet to deliver them. So we've removed that paragraph from the post above.

Unfortunately it's pretty well established that whenever you hear statistics and figures in a political speech, it's probably bullshit.

I don't get why campaigns can play so loose with the facts... when news organizations can factcheck within minutes of a speech, politicians just keep repeating and repeating, even after being called on it.

Agreed, the main problem is that it works, most viewers never follow up. This is what politics is......and I think politicians should be fined or charged for every lie they spout. They have too much influence.

Zoso

thought major patrick and michelle obama did better then anybody from the RNC. Overall their was a more human element to the issues.

Who Princess

inlet13 wrote:

I watched part of it - the last 15 min or so. I didn't like it. Nothing against her, but I didn't think the substance was very good at all. I think she's a good speaker - she showed that - so she's got that going for her. I think most lawyers are good speakers though. I think she comes across a bit cocky. Anyway, all that doesn't matter, her underlying points were not good. She's was dodging the real issues. But... In the end though, it doesn't matter. She's the first lady - she's not running for anything. This isn't the prom queen. So, who cares?

Analysis on first-ladies is kinda funny though, so I'll keep it going - unlike Michelle, I think Laura Bush was not a very good speaker. I didn't really like her and I don't like Mrs. Obama at all. I also didn't like Hillary Clinton. I dislike them for different reasons, however. With Laura Bush, I didn't like her librarian approach to everything - she seemed out of touch. With Mrs. Obama, I think she's power-hungry, yet passive aggressive. She seems to have this sense of entitlement. Hillary Clinton is also obviously power-hungry and to me, she came across as just horribly fake.

I can't think of a first lady that I thought - wow, that one's normal. They all are off... just like their husbands.

Well, it's not a very well-defined role in the 21st century. It was easy to admire someone like Jackie Kennedy, who was classy and served the role of what was essentially a corporate wife. But people expect more things now from a First Lady.

My assessment of First Ladies since I've been able to vote:

Pat Nixon--More like a shadow of a First Lady.
Betty Ford--The real deal. A gutsy, admirable woman. She kind of threw people off, she was so forthright, but I liked her a lot.
Rosalyn Carter--Flighty, tried too hard.
Nancy Reagan--Weird. Mean-spirited and condescending. I despised her even more than her husband.
Barbara Bush--Pretended to be down to earth but very phony. Showed her true colors occasionally and it was not pretty. I wasn't a fan of GHW Bush but at least he seems like he'd be a nice grandad.
Hillary Clinton--Too hands on for most people. She seemed to see the presidency as a team effort and acted surprised that people didn't accept her in that role. I didn't like her much at first but gained more respect for her over time. I think I'd like her a lot if she weren't married to Bill.
Laura Bush--Occasionally acted kind of dense but for the most part I think she's a classy lady.
Michelle Obama--I like her way more than her husband. She seems to have carved out an appropriate role for herself as First Lady and First Mom, encouraging childhood fitness and fighting obesity. But I'm a health educator, so having a prominent person advocating those things is great from my point of view.

lukin2006

dignin wrote:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/09/05/160591872/democrats-unleashed-some-dubious-or-misleading-claims-fact-checkers-say?utm_source=NPR&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=20120903

Democrats Unleashed Some 'Dubious Or Misleading Claims,' Fact Checkers Say


by MARK MEMMOTT



The scene Tuesday night at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.
Just as they did during the Republican National Convention, independent fact checkers spent the first day of the Democratic National Convention listening for claims that don't add up — and found them.


— FactCheck.org says it heard "a number of dubious or misleading claims" from the Democrats who spoke on stage Tuesday in Charlotte, N.C. Among the problems it found:

— "The keynote speaker and others claimed the Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, would raise taxes on the 'middle class.' He has promised he won't. Democrats base their claim on a study that doesn't necessarily lead to that conclusion."

— "The keynote speaker, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, also said there have been 4.5 million 'new jobs' under Obama. The fact is the economy has regained only 4 million of the 4.3 million jobs lost since Obama took office."

— "A Democratic governor said Romney 'left his state 47th out of 50 in job growth.' Actually, Massachusetts went from 50th in job creation during Romney's first year to 28th in his final year."

— "Multiple speakers repeated a claim that the Ryan/Romney Medicare plan would cost seniors $6,400 a year. That's a figure that applied to Ryan's 2011 budget plan, but his current proposal (the one Romney embraces) is far more generous."

— The Washington Post's The Fact Checker cites some of the same problems as FactCheck highlighted. And it points to this statement from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada: "We learned that he [Mitt Romney] pays a lower tax rate than middle-class families."

The Fact Checker writes that:

"For all the rhetoric about high taxes in the United States, most Americans pay a relatively small percentage of their income in taxes. Romney had an effective rate of 13.9 percent in 2010 and 15.4 percent in 2011. That gives him a higher rate than 80 percent of taxpayers if only taxes on a tax return are counted and puts him just about in the middle of all taxpayers if payroll taxes paid by employers are included."

— PolitiFact appears to have just begun its analysis. In its initial take on the night's talk, it gives Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick a "half true" rating for his statement about the state being "47th in the nation in job creation" when Romney left office there.

As for first lady Michelle Obama's address to the convention, the fact checkers don't seem to have any faults to find.

You can find all our posts about fact checks of the Republican and Democratic conventions here.

Note at 11:55 a.m. ET: Earlier, we included a reference to FactCheck.org's analysis of comments made by Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina. The analysis, it turns out, was based on Clyburn's prepared remarks — and he has yet to deliver them. So we've removed that paragraph from the post above.

So your saying both sides lie and stretch the truth.

Johnny Abruzzo

Who Princess wrote:

Barbara Bush--Pretended to be down to earth but very phony. Showed her true colors occasionally and it was not pretty. I wasn't a fan of GHW Bush but at least he seems like he'd be a nice grandad.

Yeah she's supposed to be a real bitch.

dignin wrote:

— "Multiple speakers repeated a claim that the Ryan/Romney Medicare plan would cost seniors $6,400 a year. That's a figure that applied to Ryan's 2011 budget plan, but his current proposal (the one Romney embraces) is far more generous."

Ok but this is the original budget that Ryan put forward and Romney referred to it as a "marvelous" budget. Bottom line is that this is Ryan's vision for America.

dignin

lukin2006 wrote:

dignin wrote:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/09/05/160591872/democrats-unleashed-some-dubious-or-misleading-claims-fact-checkers-say?utm_source=NPR&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=20120903

Democrats Unleashed Some 'Dubious Or Misleading Claims,' Fact Checkers Say


by MARK MEMMOTT



The scene Tuesday night at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.
Just as they did during the Republican National Convention, independent fact checkers spent the first day of the Democratic National Convention listening for claims that don't add up — and found them.


— FactCheck.org says it heard "a number of dubious or misleading claims" from the Democrats who spoke on stage Tuesday in Charlotte, N.C. Among the problems it found:

— "The keynote speaker and others claimed the Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, would raise taxes on the 'middle class.' He has promised he won't. Democrats base their claim on a study that doesn't necessarily lead to that conclusion."

— "The keynote speaker, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, also said there have been 4.5 million 'new jobs' under Obama. The fact is the economy has regained only 4 million of the 4.3 million jobs lost since Obama took office."

— "A Democratic governor said Romney 'left his state 47th out of 50 in job growth.' Actually, Massachusetts went from 50th in job creation during Romney's first year to 28th in his final year."

— "Multiple speakers repeated a claim that the Ryan/Romney Medicare plan would cost seniors $6,400 a year. That's a figure that applied to Ryan's 2011 budget plan, but his current proposal (the one Romney embraces) is far more generous."

— The Washington Post's The Fact Checker cites some of the same problems as FactCheck highlighted. And it points to this statement from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada: "We learned that he [Mitt Romney] pays a lower tax rate than middle-class families."

The Fact Checker writes that:

"For all the rhetoric about high taxes in the United States, most Americans pay a relatively small percentage of their income in taxes. Romney had an effective rate of 13.9 percent in 2010 and 15.4 percent in 2011. That gives him a higher rate than 80 percent of taxpayers if only taxes on a tax return are counted and puts him just about in the middle of all taxpayers if payroll taxes paid by employers are included."

— PolitiFact appears to have just begun its analysis. In its initial take on the night's talk, it gives Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick a "half true" rating for his statement about the state being "47th in the nation in job creation" when Romney left office there.

As for first lady Michelle Obama's address to the convention, the fact checkers don't seem to have any faults to find.

You can find all our posts about fact checks of the Republican and Democratic conventions here.

Note at 11:55 a.m. ET: Earlier, we included a reference to FactCheck.org's analysis of comments made by Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina. The analysis, it turns out, was based on Clyburn's prepared remarks — and he has yet to deliver them. So we've removed that paragraph from the post above.

So your saying both sides lie and stretch the truth.

Yup

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012 ... cking.html

Aaron 23

Awkward moment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSxEy_OV ... ata_player