Lookit all the racists
-
Parker;288219 wrote:
go to google*search*
copy*
Paste argument of something*
Change words to fit my own*
Post*
Was this directed at me Parker? If I do a copy/paste (like everyone else does as well) I try to give credit where it is due. Do I forget from time to time, absolutely. Do I care? Not really. Have I copy/pasted at all in this thread? No, aside from web addresses and a youtube video.
I'm not sure where Dave was planning on "schooling" me in here as we agree on most of the topic (that the March on Washington should have gotten more coverage). I guess he and I differ on opinion on who republican news show hosts are (Primarily O'Reilly and Beck) and then there was the matter where I had to school Dave about what Beck actually did say about attendance numbers :icon_cheers:
I guess he did school me in regard to who was behind the March on Washington....Beck takes a lot of credit for it, hence the reason I assumed it was partially his deal.
-
Are they requiring spanish at public schools now? I know when I was in HS they were requiring a foreign language to get into a 4 year school, but it didn't have to be spanish....though I think Spanish was the only language that Harvey offered.
-
63vette;288212 wrote:
On and on the Beck sponsors... http://www.mediaite.com/online/sorry-haters-fox-news-still-unaffected-by-becks-lost-advertisers/Again, I'm not sure you understood what I said. I never said his show was in financial trouble (please stop thinking I'm a typical democrat, because I'm far from it) just that he lost some major sponsors. Of course there will be people filling those slots with advertising....his show is still popular and because of that will get advertisers. It still doesn't change the fact that some big names pulled out of his time slot.
-
Politifact is about as objective and unbiased as Nancy Pelosi.
-
So....who would you recommend using for facts. I've found that they call Obama (and other Dem's) out when he is wrong as much as they call out others. They site their sources in the truthmeter. Now the challenge for you Dustin is this: Find a spot in there where they are wrong and show proof backing your claim. Should be easy if they are so far to the left.
-
I can't believe we are still discussing race. The majority of those at the rally were not racist, however there were some racist themed signs amongst them.
-
Trafik Jamz;288237 wrote:
I can't believe we are still discussing race. The majority of those at the rally were not racist, however there were some racist themed signs amongst them.the title of this thread is "lookit all the racists"......
-
Yeah, I know...and I know why Dave labeled it as such (since he doesn't think they are all racist either, but the left will put the spin that it is based on a few signs in the crowd)
-
Trafik Jamz;288243 wrote:
Yeah, I know...and I know why Dave labeled it as such (since he doesn't think they are all racist either, but the left will put the spin that it is based on a few signs in the crowd)so because there were a few signs out of 70k people the left is going to spin a health care reform protest into a protest against a president because because he is black?
sounds like a few conservatives on fs
-
Sites like "fact check" or whatever are problematic because they attempt to remove subjectivity from what is an entirely contentious problem domain.
For instance, if I say HR3200 will cause foo, and you say "the bill doesn't say that", we can both be right.
For instance, if i were to say that HR 3200 will end private health insurance, and you say "the bill doesn't say that", we're both probably right. There's nothing in the bill that says private health insurance becomes illegal. But what it does say probably makes private health insurance unworkable due to a variety of factors [like governing when an insurer can/cannot drop someone, what conditions they MUST accept, refusing new participants to existing plans, blah blah blah]
So which is the right "fact" ? That depends on what you think the fanout of government action is, especially regarding coercion and economics.
And obviously, macroeconomic theory is a HUGE point of contention amongst politicians and laymen alike.
So, the mere posting of links from websites is no gaurantor of argumentative victory. Replacing one site with any other site doesn't fix the fundamental problem: the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" is still a logical fallacy.
-
Trafik Jamz;288226 wrote:
I'm not sure where Dave was planning on "schooling" me in here as we agree on most of the topic (that the March on Washington should have gotten more coverage). I guess he and I differ on opinion on who republican news show hosts are (Primarily O'Reilly and Beck) and then there was the matter where I had to school Dave about what Beck actually did say about attendance numbers :icon_cheers:Original quote:
Trafik Jamz;288107 wrote:
<snip> there is no way that there were the 1.7 million people that Beck **claims **there were thereSee definition of "claim".
claim (kl
m)
tr.v. claimed, claim·ing, claims **3. **To state to be true, especially when open to question; assert or maintain: claimed he had won the race; a candidate claiming many supporters.I heard Beck state that a university did a spacial count and came up with 1.7 million, and he stated that the official count was in the tens of thousands. However I didn't hear any claims that 1.7 million was correct. Maybe I missed it.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Hey Chuck, here's a book for you to read just give it a try, you're not the lunatic left so you could see many of the points that come across.
[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Cant-Believe-Sitting-Next-Republican/dp/159403253X#[/ame]
We all know that's where politics get out of control, far lefts and far rights could have the same goal and same process, but if one side starts first the other will reject and snowball from there. I agree both sides need to work on give and take, but where does it start, know one knows so it will be years before real progress, do we start by not talking politics and end parties? I don't get too into it because I'm not worried about changing other people's views, but it seems like that is the extremists goal, (insert Ed Schultz joke here). It has become even in the F-M Area almost a minority feeling to have right side views (notice right:)) nowadays.
I always had faith in Americans that the more lunatic lefts there would be it would drive the common folk to the right, ( same goes on the right to be fair)I was wrong just like lemmings they fall into the deep deep abyss:icon_rabbit:
-
DaveH;288250 wrote:
Original quote:See definition of "claim".
claim (kl
m)
tr.v. claimed, claim·ing, claims **3. **To state to be true, especially when open to question; assert or maintain: claimed he had won the race; a candidate claiming many supporters.I heard Beck state that a university did a spacial count and came up with 1.7 million, and he stated that the official count was in the tens of thousands. However I didn't hear any claims that 1.7 million was correct. Maybe I missed it.
In this interview yes, he said officially tens of thousands, though some mystery university (possibly Illinois) put the number at 1.7 million...initially (in my previous link) he said 1.7 million...went so far as to interrupt others to get that number in there. He claimed it was one of the largest marches on washington ever. His claim was that the University of Illinois (maybe?) was the ones that did the spatial count...yet I can't find anything anywhere that backs up that claim either.
Dave, you know as well as anyone that just because you say something one time doesn't nullify what you said earlier.
Again, we are arguing about unimportant things really as I agree that this should have gotten play by the major media outlets, but didn't...which is what I think you were saying needed to happen as well.
-
thrash;288249 wrote:
Sites like "fact check" or whatever are problematic because they attempt to remove subjectivity from what is an entirely contentious problem domain.For instance, if I say HR3200 will cause foo, and you say "the bill doesn't say that", we can both be right.
For instance, if i were to say that HR 3200 will end private health insurance, and you say "the bill doesn't say that", we're both probably right. There's nothing in the bill that says private health insurance becomes illegal. But what it does say probably makes private health insurance unworkable due to a variety of factors [like governing when an insurer can/cannot drop someone, what conditions they MUST accept, refusing new participants to existing plans, blah blah blah]
So which is the right "fact" ? That depends on what you think the fanout of government action is, especially regarding coercion and economics.
And obviously, macroeconomic theory is a HUGE point of contention amongst politicians and laymen alike.
So, the mere posting of links from websites is no gaurantor of argumentative victory. Replacing one site with any other site doesn't fix the fundamental problem: the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" is still a logical fallacy.
I agree with this actually....and I think they do a pretty good job explaining why they give something a truth, mostly true, half true, barely true and lie rating. For example, on the issue you brought up politifact.com had this statement:
**> Obama wrote:
If you "already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have."**
and gave this response:
politifact wrote:
Seeking to jump-start efforts to pass a health care bill, President Barack Obama defended his reform plan in a speech to a joint session of Congress.
He sought to reassure Americans they would not lose their current coverage.
"First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have," Obama said. "Let me repeat this: Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have."
Obama is correct that the plans under consideration do not force those who currently have insurance to change plans. The proposals seek to build on the current system, where many Americans get coverage through work.
The plans do, however, implement new consumer protections and introduce new ways of regulating health insurance companies.
These new rules will surely change the current health care system. The bill in the House of Representatives gives employer-provided insurance five years to come into compliance with new rules, such as caps on out-of-pocket expenses and coverage for preventive care.
Right now, employers have the freedom to change or drop coverage, and they will continue to have that freedom under health reform. Doctors, too, can opt in or out of accepting various insurance plans, including Medicare. Because of this inherent instability to the health care system, and because of the new regulations, we rated one of Obama's earlier statements on the effects of reform — "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan" — Half True .
Given what we know about reform, it seems likely that at least some people will have employers who decide to change plans when insurers alter their offerings under the new regulations. This would be most likely for any small businesses that currently offer health insurance. They will be allowed to use a national exchange where insurers compete to offer insurance, and prices are expected to be lower.
Obama's statement from the speech is more carefully phrased than his earlier statement. In his speech, he said that if you are "already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have." That is true, there is nothing in the plan that proactively forces these kinds of changes, and the bills clearly intend to leave much of the current health care system in place. We rate Obama's statement True. -
My only point is, nowhere has he claimed that 1.7 million people were there. Which is what you claimed that he claimed.
:icon_rr:
Yes, it is silly to argue about this. But it makes the day go by faster.
:icon_rendeer:
Now Jimmy Carter on the other hand, needs to be slapped silly.
Trafik Jamz;288255 wrote:
In this interview yes, he said officially tens of thousands, though some mystery university (possibly Illinois) put the number at 1.7 million...initially (in my previous link) he said 1.7 million...went so far as to interrupt others to get that number in there. He claimed it was one of the largest marches on washington ever. His claim was that the University of Illinois (maybe?) was the ones that did the spatial count...yet I can't find anything anywhere that backs up that claim either.Dave, you know as well as anyone that just because you say something one time doesn't nullify what you said earlier.
Again, we are arguing about unimportant things really as I agree that this should have gotten play by the major media outlets, but didn't...which is what I think you were saying needed to happen as well.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login