Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

"Turn in your neighbors" - The newest right-wing blog scareFollow

#77 Aug 17 2009 at 4:35 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
No. I don't define education based on whether the results of said education agree with my own opinions. Kind of subjective, isn't it? You'll note that when I disagree with someone, I don't say they are uneducated. I say they are wrong and clearly explain why. I'll ask you again to apply that keen observational capability towards yourself. Isn't it interesting that you equate my disagreement with things you believe in as a lack of, or disagreement with, "education"? Who's guilty of making that association here? Methinks it's you...


This is why I say you are clueless, doubtless you will never understand why. It's nice you have an opinion. An opinion is neither "right" nor "wrong". It's an opinion.

As long as you state your opinions as facts, you remain clueless. Have a nice day.
#78 Aug 17 2009 at 4:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
There is a movement to simply define "truth" as what you agree with or believe in, and therefore allow you to simply ignore anything else as "untrue". Very convenient.

This is funny as hell considering how easily and readily the Right has bought into "Anything not from Fox or AM radio is MAINSTREAM MEDIA and not be trusted."


Again. It's subjective. I could just as easily say that the Left has bought into "Anything on Fox or AM radio is CONSERVATIVE MEDIA and not to be trusted".

Shall we compare the relative rates at which conservatives eschew the mainstream media to the relative rates at which liberals eschew Fox News and AM talk radio? Who is more guilty of this? I'll again suggest that folks look at their own biases when insisting on pointing out others.


I'll also point out that I don't dismiss other people's opinions by attacking some assumed source. I discuss the position/opinion itself. Given that you are one of the worse offenders in the "you're wrong because you're just repeating something you heard on Fox News" category, you really don't have a leg to stand on here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#79 Aug 17 2009 at 4:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Technogeek wrote:
As long as you state your opinions as facts, you remain clueless. Have a nice day.


Which is hysterical, given that the point of my earlier post was the danger of having a government organization stating their opinions as "facts". It's like you get that this is a bad thing, but just can't bring yourself to condemn it when the opinions being elevated in this way happen to match yours (at least I'm going to assume this is the case)...


Doubly ironic is then being called "clueless" by someone failing to grasp this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#80 Aug 17 2009 at 4:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Again. It's subjective. I could just as easily say that the Left has bought into "Anything on Fox or AM radio is CONSERVATIVE MEDIA and not to be trusted".

You could but you'd be comparing the labeling of two sources versus the labeling of hundreds of sources that aren't those two. But whatever makes you feel better Smiley: laugh
Quote:
I'll also point out that I don't dismiss other people's opinions by attacking some assumed source.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Oh... my... God.... that was funny. Need I remind you of "Those counts taken from newspapers and collected by Fivethirtyeight.com are LIBERAL MEDIA!!!! We should use THESE numbers collected by the Freepers!"

Oh... and followed by "I didn't bother to look into where the numbers I said were the right ones came from. But... ummm... they didn't come from that SCARY LIBERAL website so obviously I should present them as evidence instead."

Good Lord, you're such a pathetic tool but at least you're an amusing pathetic tool.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#81 Aug 17 2009 at 4:50 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Which is hysterical, given that the point of my earlier post was the danger of having a government organization stating their opinions as "facts". It's like you get that this is a bad thing, but just can't bring yourself to condemn it when the opinions being elevated in this way happen to match yours (at least I'm going to assume this is the case)...


Doubly ironic is then being called "clueless" by someone failing to grasp this.


Considering I have said nothing about anything else in this topic, I am amused. Most politicians are pinheaded crooks, in my opinion. This makes that neither true nor false, merely my opinion.

I stand by my statements, oh pointy haired one.
#82 Aug 17 2009 at 4:51 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
Which is hysterical, given that the point of my earlier post was the danger of having a government organization stating their opinions as "facts".


Healthcare reform resulting in a better overall situation for society? Opinion as all hell.

Particular instance of healthcare reform not resulting in your retarded babies, grandmother's, and genetically inferior friends' deaths; the assertion that the NHS has not led to the ruination of Britannia; the denial that people who already cannot afford coverage will lose coverage (seriously, what the fuck?)? Fact as all hell.
#83 Aug 17 2009 at 4:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
Isn't it interesting that you equate my disagreement with things you believe in as a lack of, or disagreement with, "education"?


It's extremely interesting that your spectacular logic education lead you to believe that I have asserted that, yes.


It was implied in your post, yes. Without that assumption, your statement becomes a non-sequitur. It was you who "led me to believe that". If you didn't intend that, you should have been more clear about your meaning.

Quote:
Those are in approximate ascending order of relevance, by the way.


Wonderful. Relevant in what way? Look. If you don't want me to fill in the blanks in terms of what the hell point you're making, don't make such vague statements? Ok?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#84 Aug 17 2009 at 4:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
Which is hysterical, given that the point of my earlier post was the danger of having a government organization stating their opinions as "facts".


Healthcare reform resulting in a better overall situation for society? Opinion as all hell.

Particular instance of healthcare reform not resulting in your retarded babies, grandmother's, and genetically inferior friends' deaths; the assertion that the NHS has not led to the ruination of Britannia; the denial that people who already cannot afford coverage will lose coverage (seriously, what the fuck?)? Fact as all hell.


Irrelevant. You're missing the forest for the trees.

It does not matter what the topic is. The idea that the White House would operate a web site in which it seeks out opinions in opposition to the administration's agenda and attempts to "officially" debunk them is a bad idea. This is not about health care. It's about the idea that a partisan government web site should become the arbiter of "truth" and "fact".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#85 Aug 17 2009 at 5:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Again. It's subjective. I could just as easily say that the Left has bought into "Anything on Fox or AM radio is CONSERVATIVE MEDIA and not to be trusted".

You could but you'd be comparing the labeling of two sources versus the labeling of hundreds of sources that aren't those two.


I was commenting on the validity of the argument, not picking a side Joph.


Quote:
Oh... my... God.... that was funny. Need I remind you of "Those counts taken from newspapers and collected by Fivethirtyeight.com are LIBERAL MEDIA!!!! We should use THESE numbers collected by the Freepers!"


Strawman again. I didn't make any such argument. You were the one who placed great stock in the source. I simply googled for numbers and posted what I found. You specifically sought out a sight which was "Liberal", and dismissed the numbers I found because they were from some conservative site. What's funny is that if you asked me, I could not recall the names of the sites. But you can...

What does that say Joph?

Quote:
Oh... and followed by "I didn't bother to look into where the numbers I said were the right ones came from. But... ummm... they didn't come from that SCARY LIBERAL website so obviously I should present them as evidence instead."


Lol. Nice little rewrite of history there. You're the one who insisted that your numbers must be right and mine must be wrong based purely on their source. IIRC, my primary point was to show that there was a difference in the reported numbers based on who you talked to.


you see most in others that which you know to be in yourself
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#86 Aug 17 2009 at 5:12 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
It was implied in your post, yes.


Asserting that you hate education isn't the same as calling you uneducated, nor wrong; it is, however, an ironic commentary of your assertion that you are educated as well as astute and of good judgment given what you believe of education in general. Non-sequiter? Try scathing indictment of hypocrisy. You are more than welcome to prove this with logical inference instead of paranoid intuition. I will admit defeat in three seconds if you do and vacate this thread entirely, regardless of the relevance of any other points I might be making simultaneously, but to be honest, I wouldn't bother trying, because it's not implied.

Quote:
Wonderful. Relevant in what way? Look. If you don't want me to fill in the blanks in terms of what the hell point you're making, don't make such vague statements? Ok?


That you have a blatantly obvious phobia of formal education when it doesn't suit you. I can't begin to count the times you've attributed liberal ideology, often towards me, but even towards other posters who don't engage with you as vehemently as I do, to brainwashing and unquestioning obedience to public education.

Quote:
Irrelevant. You're missing the forest for the trees.

It does not matter what the topic is. The idea that the White House would operate a web site in which it seeks out opinions in opposition to the administration's agenda and attempts to "officially" debunk them is a bad idea. This is not about health care. It's about the idea that a partisan government web site should become the arbiter of "truth" and "fact".


Another phrase I can't begin to count the times of usage.

It does not matter what the topic is. The idea that the White House would operate wiretaps in which it seeks out opinions in opposition to the administration's agenda and attempts to "unofficially" silence them is a bad idea. This is not about terrorism. It's about the idea that a partisan government program should become the arbiter of "right" and "wrong."

I don't think I've ever had an analogy that easy before.
#87 Aug 17 2009 at 5:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I was commenting on the validity of the argument, not picking a side Joph.
Yes. One side is much more valid than the other. Amusingly, the Right has been sucked into the false side and you refuse to admit to it.

Quote:
I didn't make any such argument. You were the one who placed great stock in the source. I simply googled for numbers and posted what I found. You specifically sought out a sight which was "Liberal", and dismissed the numbers I found because they were from some conservative site.

I specifically sought out a liberal site? Really? Wow, who knew you were such a mind reader. In reality, I used the source because I had seen the entry before and knew that the numbers were all backed up by published sources. You dismissed the numbers as "liberal" and gave me the "real" numbers.

The thread in question. When I bring up the numbers from 538, you come back with "Love how you keep using a site run by liberals as some kind of authoritarian source" and then present the "real" numbers. Which I then note were collected by Freepers. You were so quick to dismiss a source that didn't jive with what you wanted that you grabbed anything that'd make you look better. Then admitted in another thread (really as a face saving measure) that you never bothered to investigate the numbers you were presenting. Which is a good thing to know that Gbaji, when he sees his argument falling apart will grab random bullshit off the web and try to throw it out there. Of course, you also fell for blogs with the Obama/Odinga "story" so.... yeah Smiley: laugh
Quote:
What's funny is that if you asked me, I could not recall the names of the sites. But you can...

What does that say Joph?

I have a much better memory than you?

Quote:
you see most in others that which you know to be in yourself
...in bed!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#88 Aug 17 2009 at 5:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
It was implied in your post, yes.


Asserting that you hate education isn't the same as calling you uneducated, nor wrong;


Which isn't what I said.

I said that you were equating a disagreement with things you agree with as a lack of, or disagreement with, education. Put another way: You assume I "hate education" because I disagree with positions you agree with (and you presumably associate those positions with education, or you wouldn't make the reverse association you have made).

Get it? It's your assumption operating here. I was just pointing it out for you. But thanks for confirming it yet again...




Quote:
Quote:
Irrelevant. You're missing the forest for the trees.

It does not matter what the topic is. The idea that the White House would operate a web site in which it seeks out opinions in opposition to the administration's agenda and attempts to "officially" debunk them is a bad idea. This is not about health care. It's about the idea that a partisan government web site should become the arbiter of "truth" and "fact".


Another phrase I can't begin to count the times of usage.

It does not matter what the topic is. The idea that the White House would operate wiretaps in which it seeks out opinions in opposition to the administration's agenda and attempts to "unofficially" silence them is a bad idea. This is not about terrorism. It's about the idea that a partisan government program should become the arbiter of "right" and "wrong."

I don't think I've ever had an analogy that easy before.



So. If one is a bad idea, isn't the other? Am I to assume you therefore agree with me that the Obama administration should not be doing this?


I'll also point out that at no point was the NSA wiretapping used to create propaganda or in any way influence public opinion. But other than that, your analogy is spot on!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#89 Aug 17 2009 at 5:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:

The thread in question. When I bring up the numbers from 538, you come back with "Love how you keep using a site run by liberals as some kind of authoritarian source" and then present the "real" numbers.


Lol. Did you read the linked thread?

I wrote:

Here's a site listing numbers. These numbers were derived from contacting the actual organizers of each event and getting estimates and in some cases actual signup numbers to show how many attended. He's sorted them into low, medium, and high estimates.

The nationwide result is somewhere between 780k and 920k. That's much much larger than the number estimated by your source (and larger than the first look number I got). It is possible these numbers are inflated? Sure. But that's possible for any estimates. I think it's still enough to show that the total number for these events were in the same league as any other large protest we've seen in the US, yet the media coverage would make you think it was a pretty minor thing.



Gee. Yeah. I just come off as a totally blind conservative hack there Joph. Yup. I'm unwilling to accept the possibility that different source can come up with different numbers and that "mine" might not be the right ones. Oh wait! That's you...


Way to prove my point Joph. I mentioned 538 only because you'd used it a lot in other threads at that time, and it had seemed to have a liberal bias. I freely acknowledged that their number matched the numbers I'd gotten at first as well. I just linked another source to show that there were higher estimates. And you jumped all over it as some "evil conservative site". Um... Yeah.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#90 Aug 17 2009 at 5:52 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It is possible these numbers are inflated? Sure. But that's possible for any estimates.

Right. Nice hedge.
Quote:
I think it's still enough to show that the total number for these events were in the same league as any other large protest we've seen in the US, yet the media coverage would make you think it was a pretty minor thing.

Wait... the numbers "might" be wrong but they still support my claim, not like the numbers Jophiel used!

Smiley: laugh Keep at it.
Quote:
Gee. Yeah. I just come off as a totally blind conservative hack there Joph. Yup.

Yup.
Quote:
I'm unwilling to accept the possibility that different source can come up with different numbers and that "mine" might not be the right ones.

Yet, yours DO support your argument so we can afford to hedge on them and give the illusion of not being blindly partisan while still insisting that they're good enough for what we want to prove.
Quote:
Way to prove my point Joph.

Way to prove mine Smiley: laugh
Quote:
I freely acknowledged that their number matched the numbers I'd gotten at first as well.

Yeah, it was funny how you started out using those numbers, saw that you were losing the debate on the size of the tea parties versus the immigration rallies and then suddenly changed to some other source (instead of using some "liberal" source as "authoritarian" with its silly links and cites), told us how the "media reports" were probably far too low and these NEW numbers from this website would do a much better job of supporting your argument that the events were pretty much the same.

Man, you never stop giving, do ya?

Edited, Aug 17th 2009 8:57pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#91 Aug 17 2009 at 6:00 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
You assume I "hate education" because I disagree with positions you agree with (and you presumably associate those positions with education, or you wouldn't make the reverse association you have made).


I assume you hate education because of ********************************************************************************************************************************** like this[/link], you insipid pathological revisionist. The association I make between you and a vilification of education is a public and inductive chain of reasoning over the course of many years.

Quote:
So. If one is a bad idea, isn't the other?


Nope. They aren't bad ideas because of the principles of the government involving itself in it's citizens affairs. The instantiations themselves vary with respect to subject, degree, purpose, utility, and motivation. You claimed not to give a crap about those factors though, rendering the, by your appraisal, analogous situation of wiretapping similarly bad, under your logical umbrella. I am not constrained by that umbrella, because I can appraise each situation on the merits of other factors in addition to the principle, and not at the exclusion of all but the principle.

Quote:
I'll also point out that at no point was the NSA wiretapping used to create propaganda or in any way influence public opinion.


Are you ******* daft man?
#92 Aug 17 2009 at 7:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
You assume I "hate education" because I disagree with positions you agree with (and you presumably associate those positions with education, or you wouldn't make the reverse association you have made).


I assume you hate education because of sh*t like this, you insipid pathological revisionist.


I didn't attack education. I questioned the validity of the field of sociology as it is often applied. Um... I'm not alone in that. It's a field often laughed at as a joke even by professionals in other related fields (history, psychology, anthropology, etc). It's been described to me by more than one professor of those related fields as "a field dedicated to restating the obvious in a way designed to support pre-existing conclusions while providing no real advancement in knowledge". Well, something like that...

Yes. I have very very little respect for sociologists. This does not mean I don't respect education.

Quote:
The association I make between you and a vilification of education is a public and inductive chain of reasoning over the course of many years.


No. You're most likely mistaking my unwillingness to simply assume that because someone has a degree that they must be right. My position on this derives from personally knowing and interacting with a larger number of people involved in higher level academia. Some of those people, heck, many of those people, are brilliant and incredibly knowledgeable within their subjects. But this by no means precludes them from making mistakes and errors just as often as anyone else.

I don't assume someone is right because of their level of education. That's not the same thing as hating education. That's a connection you made all on your own.

Quote:
Quote:
So. If one is a bad idea, isn't the other?


Nope. They aren't bad ideas because of the principles of the government involving itself in it's citizens affairs. The instantiations themselves vary with respect to subject, degree, purpose, utility, and motivation. You claimed not to give a crap about those factors though, rendering the, by your appraisal, analogous situation of wiretapping similarly bad, under your logical umbrella.


Missing the point again. How do you do this so often? I did not say that no factors mattered. Just that it wasn't constrained to the issue of health care:

I wrote:
It does not matter what the topic is. The idea that the White House would operate a web site in which it seeks out opinions in opposition to the administration's agenda and attempts to "officially" debunk them is a bad idea. This is not about health care. It's about the idea that a partisan government web site should become the arbiter of "truth" and "fact".



Do you see how the one thing that *does* matter is if the government is trying to tell people what is "true"? I explained this pretty clearly, yet you still failed to grasp it. Amazing...

Quote:
I am not constrained by that umbrella, because I can appraise each situation on the merits of other factors in addition to the principle, and not at the exclusion of all but the principle.


It was your analogy Pensive. Not mine. Why mention it, claim it's a valid analogy, and now insist that you don't think it is, but that I do? Um... I said it was a bad analogy, and explained exactly *why* it was. Once again, my position is consistent. Your analogy did not contain a condition in which the government was attempting to define "truth" for the citizens.


You're making assumptions about what I care about, while ignoring my very clear statements. How about you read what I write instead of making such assumptions? You do this constantly and it's frankly pretty darn annoying. You've managed to misstate and thus miss-argue every single point I've made. It's not like I haven't been clear...

Quote:
Quote:
I'll also point out that at no point was the NSA wiretapping used to create propaganda or in any way influence public opinion.


Are you @#%^ing daft man?


 
     ^ 
   / | \ 
     | 


This is your brain not getting it.


What part of that statement was unclear? What part of me clearly stating that this issue isn't about health care, but about the government defining "truth" did you not get? Thus, the *only* relevant analogy would include another case of the government doing something similar. Instead, you pulled out an analogy which just happens to include a "bad thing" you blame the Bush administration for doing.


Which is amusing on a number of levels. On the one hand, it implies an argument that what the Obama administration is doing is ok, because the Bush administration did things you didn't like. Which is childish and idiotic, but whatever. Um... But then you seem to want to rise above that by insisting that it's not *you* who see this as a valid analogy, but somehow *I* hold to a set of moral determinants which make this valid. You seem to think that by doing this, you can simultaneously criticize me for what Bush did, absolve Obama for doing what he's doing, and place the blame for said inconsistently on my own shoulders instead of yours.


I'm sorry man. But that's all your pathology going on there. And it's pretty darn twisted. All I said is that it's a bad idea for for the government to set itself up as the arbiter of what is "truth" and "fact". It's freaking amazing the twisted mental process you're going through to respond to that.


Why not just look at the statement itself and decide if it's valid? Why continuously meander though this bizarre set of illogical leaps in order to avoid discussing the single issue in front of us? Wow. Just wow...

Edited, Aug 17th 2009 8:31pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#93 Aug 17 2009 at 8:14 PM Rating: Good
It's funny to watch Gbaji and Pensive argue, because I tend to give Gbaji the upper hand. At least his responses, while mind-numbingly boring, avoid resorting to aggression and emotion as a platform.
#94 Aug 17 2009 at 9:34 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

Pensive's aggression and emotion aren't the platform of his arguments, they're inflections.

#95 Aug 18 2009 at 1:24 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
It's funny to watch Gbaji and Pensive argue, because I tend to give Gbaji the upper hand. At least his responses, while mind-numbingly boring, avoid resorting to aggression and emotion as a platform.


We can't all be mind-numbingly, preposterously, inconceivably hypocritical about our feelings. Oh well, guess I'm just not manly enough to pretend that I don't get emotional or even just impassioned when discussing matters /shrug

Quote:
I'll also point out that at no point was the NSA wiretapping used to create propaganda or in any way influence public opinion.


Because that's what a reductio ad absurdum is you continually, pridefully anti-intellectual doofus. Just because I think that transubstantiation is ridiculous in christianity doesn't mean I'm a christian. Just because I think that political realism is jingoistic and hypocritical as a political theory doesn't mean I'm a realist. Just because your logic, not implies, but is equivalent to, another line of reasoning that you detest does not mean I agree with the logic in the first place. What it means, is that you are advancing two mutually exclusive propositions and will not acknowledge it. Now you could say something like, "I know the strategy of that Fey girl, just pointing out contradictions until she stumbles into a verdict without putting forth substance" then that would be a decent criticism. To that I would simply respond, "haha sucker, I don't need a positive and substantial argument to prove that Damon Gant is a *****."

Quote:
No. You're most likely mistaking my unwillingness to simply assume that because someone has a degree that they must be right. My position on this derives from personally knowing and interacting with a larger number of people involved in higher level academia.


Your position on this comes from being a completely arrogant tool that, whether you want to believe this or not, has a perfect and verifiable history of discrediting the education of anyone who disagrees with you, and glorifying the education of anyone who does agree with you. I don't really care what you think you believe when every word you express, ever, is contrary to it in action; you simply are not and have never been a trustworthy source of your own beliefs due to a total lack of anything resembling self-reflection. Maybe smash can tell me the odds of this being a simple coincidence.

Quote:
What part of that statement was unclear?


Unclear? Nothing. Ridiculously incorrect political revisionism? Absolutely. I wish I had that much power to rewrite history. I don't know how you can conceive of a universe where illegal wiretapping and even the war on terror in general is not entirely and absolutely propaganda. Of course the aim of the formed admin was to spread propaganda.

Edited, Aug 18th 2009 5:29am by Pensive
#96 Aug 18 2009 at 4:22 AM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
I guess I'm weird. I don't see anything wrong with creating a website to fight rumors and lies. If they are wrong, I'm sure the Republican party would create a similar one to re-prove them. When I see such a site going up fully supporting the evidence behind death panels and proving that it was actually an Obama cover-up, and that poor little Trig Palin's oversized head is on the chopping block, then I'd lend more credence to the idea that the Obama administration has their heads up their collective asses. Until then, well, I find it odd that "free speech" is seen as impeded when a website exists showing how f*cking retarded (no offense to Trig) these rumors are. You can say whatever you want; but expect to be asked to back it up.

I dunno, I see things on a level with which I am more familiar. The rumors about healthcare reform are given by people like Varrus or ThiefX, and sometimes Gbaji (who just gets them from conservative blogs, which seem to get them from conservative demagogues, which puts them a half-step higher than the faux-grassroots rumors). When these posters say something completely ridiculous, we call them on it. They change the subject (Varrus) or pretend not to hear (Thief), or try to back it up and then say "Well, I ACTUALLY said maybe and exaggerated" when proven wrong (Gbaji). And we all go on our merry way. I sort of feel this is the same idea for the Obama administration. The difference being here that millions of lives could be affected, and some of the conservative posters are backed up by insurance company or Republican party money, and some of the liberal posters are backed by the US government or Democratic money.

The Government has a tough time fighting against these shadowy rumors, so making a central website, where concerned citizens can send in anything they hear so the government can respond directly, seems like a great idea. And, so it seems to me, as soon as those opposing healthcare reform realized that "Hey, this actually might be really effective!" they freaked out and had to slander the effort in whatever way possible; here, by calling it an infringement of their rights, Orwellian, Newspeak, Big Brother, etc.

Again that's just how I see it. I can see arguments against healthcare reform; I just don't think they hold a candle to the things for it. But some people do, and are willing to do whatever it takes to derail any prospect of reform. In Varrus's case I completely understand, as he works in insurance. If I did the same kind of job I might think differently as well.
#97 Aug 18 2009 at 4:30 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Admiral LockeColeMA wrote:
I guess I'm weird. I don't see anything wrong with creating a website to fight rumors and lies. If they are wrong, I'm sure the Republican party would create a similar one to re-prove them.
I'm sure they have. I quit reading this thread when gjabi joined in the discussion, but initially it wasn't the website that was questionable, it was 'report fishy stuff' email address and request.

I'm sure the republicans do have a website that claims to sort out the truth as well. Keep in mind though that this website we're looking at is NOT a democratic website - its a US government website. It represents and speaks for us all - not just the liberals. It needs to take extra precautions to remain neutral, unbiased and to not accidentally tread on anyones constitutional rights.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#98 Aug 18 2009 at 6:31 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
It needs to take extra precautions to remain neutral, unbiased and to not accidentally tread on anyones constitutional rights.


There is nothing in the entire world more neutral than correcting false information. Stating facts and actually elucidating objectives and implications, to the best of your intention and foreknowledge, is about as unbiased as you can possibly be. Letting misinformation spread is not just harmful to the country, but a tacit endorsement of doomsaying. It's irresponsible not to correct it.
#99 Aug 18 2009 at 7:00 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
It needs to take extra precautions to remain neutral, unbiased and to not accidentally tread on anyones constitutional rights.


There is nothing in the entire world more neutral than correcting false information. Stating facts and actually elucidating objectives and implications, to the best of your intention and foreknowledge, is about as unbiased as you can possibly be. Letting misinformation spread is not just harmful to the country, but a tacit endorsement of doomsaying. It's irresponsible not to correct it.


I like PolitiFact.com. While its a commercial site I find it more neutral than the White House.



edited my own WRONG information.

Edited, Aug 18th 2009 5:05pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#100REDACTED, Posted: Aug 18 2009 at 7:01 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Pensive,
#101 Aug 18 2009 at 7:07 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,229 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Pensive,

Quote:
There is nothing in the entire world more neutral than correcting false information.


I agree. Of course saying Obama is pushing for a single payer system is not false information. Saying that Obama is trying to use the govn to take over every private industry is not false information; i.e. banking, mortgage, auto industry, and now healthcare. Saying Obama has changed the rhetoric from health care reform to health insurance reform is not false information. Saying there will be end of life govn panels used to determine whether grandma gets that hip replacement at 80 is not false information. Saying that according to the CBO numbers this plan will cost more than twice what Obama's administration has stated is not false information. Saying that most americans don't want a major overhaul of health care is not false information.



Nothing you've said in that (long) paragraph is false information? Smiley: dubious

Given your track record I'm not surprised.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 228 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (228)