Lookit all the racists
-
Raider;288119 wrote:
I think Super Dave and Chuck could go on for another 300 posts on this subjectHa. Yep, it's all good. I just got done helping my daughter with homework, and now I gotta "school" Chuck some more.
:icon_rr:
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
That last pic was pretty funny Dave.
For those trying to keep track of the truths/blatant lies, politifact is keeping track for you http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/
-
DaveH;288137 wrote:
Ha. Yep, it's all good. I just got done helping my daughter with homework, and now I gotta "school" Chuck some more.:icon_rr:
How is she doing with the REQUIRED spanish?On and on the Beck sponsors... http://www.mediaite.com/online/sorry-haters-fox-news-still-unaffected-by-becks-lost-advertisers/
-
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.
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