|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/31/2008 03:24:16 PM · #776 |
| Let the detours, ramblings, rantings and red herrings begin. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 03:26:26 PM · #777 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Prash:
Just because you prove you are fighting this argument alone here doesnt (sic) make what you believe a universal truth, unless you back your statements with impartial FACTS and not prejudices. |
The same is true about your posts.
Originally posted by Prash:
Again and again you are choosing not to respond to the facts when presented about Fox... |
Perhaps that's because YOU didn't provide any FACTS about Fox News.
Originally posted by Prash:
In all fairness, just as you dont (sic) want to take FactCheck.org as a reliable source, I disagree to take Fox news as a reliable source. I even provided common folk's (sic) words (no propaganda.. just random opinions) that say why Fox News may be unreliable as a source of truth. But you chose to ignore them. You owe an explanation wny.(sic) |
Why does Flash owe an explanation for ignoring what are, by your own admission, "random OPINIONS" and not FACTS? Perhaps it is YOU who owes an explanation as to why you demand FACTS from others but do not provide them yourself.
Originally posted by Prash:
Also, you dont (sic) have any proof against FactCheck.org being an unreliable source, yet you expect me to believe it is so. |
Speaking of FACTS, and the demand for same - please provide the FACTS to back up your statement that Flash "dont (sic) have any proof against FactCheck.org being an unreliable source". Also, provide FACTS that Fox News is an unreliable source.
OR, you could help to return this thread to a more civil discourse by merely acknowledging that Flash is as entitled to his OPINION about FactCheck.org - without having to provide FACTS - as you are to your OPINION about Fox News - without having to provide FACTS.
Originally posted by Prash:
In light of the above, how can you expect a person from the other side to have a knowledgible (sic) and informed discussion? It is a genuine question. |
Yes, I can hardly wait to read your response. |
I dont think you read all my posts in this thread or you would have found the facts, not just opinions.. so I recommend you go back and read them first.
Now, you are not  Flash, and I dont want to further this discussion assuming you represent his answers. I will reply to his pointed answers, rather than your vague attacks, if and when they come.
Message edited by author 2008-10-31 15:27:31. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 03:27:47 PM · #778 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by Flash:
1. I am not convinced that such a thing as "impartial facts" exist - at least from the standpoint that we both agree that they are impartial.
|
Well then we can never have a healthy discussion, can we? I firmly believe in bringing facts to the table before addressing conflicting issue(s). And you firmly believe that there can never be perfectly impartial fact sources.
There is one way out though: can you propose a nominally impartial source of facts from your best knowledge and we can try to see if I agree that is a 'workable' source, and then we base all our statements on facts from that source?
Originally posted by Flash:
2. If you have a list of truly impartial sources (and FactCheck.org is not one of them), I will gladly assess it and see if we cannot have a reasonable discussion.
|
Like I said above, your beliefs lead you to dismiss any source that I provide. I respectfully invite you to provide a source, which is -preferrably- not a big business house but a non-profit organization.. or it can even be a source from outside the U.S. that both of us can agree is a 3rd party source that is nominally impartial may not be perfect).
Originally posted by Flash:
3. Last night Maddow ......I am more than willing to Stand up and have responsible discussions, but it requires more than one side to come to the table and respect the arguments of the other. Bashing FOX news as unreliable when clearly they are not, won't move us forward. Even Obama knows he needs FOX news' audience. |
|
In all fairness, just as you dont want to take FactCheck.org as a reliable source, I disagree to take Fox news as a reliable source. I even provided common folk's words (no propaganda.. just random opinions) that say why Fox News may be unreliable as a source of truth. But you chose to ignore them. You owe an explanation wny.
Also, you dont have any proof against FactCheck.org being an unreliable source, yet you expect me to believe it is so.
In light of the above, how can you expect a person from the other side to have a knowledgible and informed discussion? It is a genuine question.
So now, we have two choices:
[1] You will propose a news source that is nominally impartial and I agree to that and we carry on a meaningful discussion.
[2] You will say that there isnt such source (not even marginally impartial), in which case we will end this discussion, and you will stop posting on this forum.
I have little hopes of [2] happening, and I hope [1] happens. Now if none of them happen, I prove my point that all you want to do here is have factless debates, and have still not cleared your intentions.
If I remember correctly, you are an English major. What do you equate a factless conversation with, if not a baseless and endless stirrup?
I await your pointed responses to the above, not another pile of baseless statements.
ETA: I just read your comments on Obama's tax plans and how McCain's is better for those making above 111,645 USD (not 66K) per year. I am aware of that. And I appreciate how you pointed to that. Here is a breakup of his proposed plan, the original source being a tax policy center, not NPR. Now this would be a factual discussion, unlike a factless one. Also, from the same source,
"In the end, the Tax Policy Center's Burman says, both Obama's and McCain's plans would add to the national debt."
This is what I call impartial reporting. No matter who gets elected, the national debt will rise because of the current turmoil.. and not all their individual plans be get executed right away... not just Obama's.. that is impartiality. Still, I just believe more in Obama's ideals than McCain's. Its not Obama's fault that he is not as old as McCain? Obama has a whole life remaining ahead.. and I refuse not give his ideas a chance JUST because McCain has been around longer besides other issues. I am sorry but we are not talking about cheese here that gets better with age... and even if we did, some of them start to smell pretty bad:-) [/quote]
1. I had completely missed your reply contained in the first part of the above quote. In reading it now, I'll comment with the following:
a. I said that factcheck.org was not immediately acceptable to me without more assessment and further that it may be the best we have. Eqsite then replied with information about factcheck being founded by a Mccain supporter. That is new news to me and I'll verify it. It might change the dynamics or it might not.
b. I have not dismissed every source and even used Ray's source "the St Petersburg Times" in an example of my own.
c. You contuinue to claim that Obama's tax benefit begins at 116K instead of 66k and attempted to correct me, even though I provided a link (CNN article) which showed a $200 advantage at 66K. I am not sure what you definition of savings is, but to me $200 saved is better than $200 taken. So to continue to state that I wil not use any sources or facts is wrong.
d. You quote the Tax Policy Center in saying that both plans will add to the deficit. I agree and use this as further evidence that Obama is less than truthful - even referencing a morning article with Obama's own campaign hedging on his tax promises due to the financial crisis. To me that simply supports my claim that Obama is not truthful on his tax policy. We both know (or should know) that Obama cannot reduce taxes on 95% of americans (working or otherwise). This crisis won't allow it. Yet it continues as a campaign point. A false one. One that you seem ready to ignore. The very action you are charging me with.
e. I asked you for independent sources which you countered with by asking me for sources. I guess neither of us will offer up any sources.
f. You believe more in Obama's ideals than McCains. Thats fair. Is this factcheck verifiable? Do I need or require proof of this before I accept it from you? You typed it as a fact, therefore unless you give me reason to doubt you, then I accept it as so. You believe Obama's ideals better. Great. Which ideals are these? The ones that he shares with Reverand Wright? Or Louis Farakhan? Or William Ayers? Or Resko? Or Khalidi? Or are they the ideals he talks about in this presiddentail campaign where he himself states that he is targeting moderate republicans. Are you saying that you agree with moderate republican values?
2. I may very well choose to end participation - but if and when I do, it will be on my terms, not because you are irritated by a fly at a picnic.
Message edited by author 2008-10-31 15:47:52. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 03:36:33 PM · #779 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Snipped a long diatribe..... |
Why doesn't it surprise me that you'd be an advocate of Fox?
|
|
|
|
10/31/2008 03:55:45 PM · #780 |
Originally posted by Flash:
We both know (or should know) that Obama cannot reduce taxes on 95% of americans (working or otherwise). This crisis won't allow it. Yet it continues as a campaign point. A false one. |
Hmmm.... McCain seems to think he can give every American a tax cut. :-/ |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 03:59:23 PM · #781 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by Flash:
1. I am not convinced that such a thing as "impartial facts" exist - at least from the standpoint that we both agree that they are impartial.
|
Well then we can never have a healthy discussion, can we? I firmly believe in bringing facts to the table before addressing conflicting issue(s). And you firmly believe that there can never be perfectly impartial fact sources.
There is one way out though: can you propose a nominally impartial source of facts from your best knowledge and we can try to see if I agree that is a 'workable' source, and then we base all our statements on facts from that source?
Originally posted by Flash:
2. If you have a list of truly impartial sources (and FactCheck.org is not one of them), I will gladly assess it and see if we cannot have a reasonable discussion.
|
Like I said above, your beliefs lead you to dismiss any source that I provide. I respectfully invite you to provide a source, which is -preferrably- not a big business house but a non-profit organization.. or it can even be a source from outside the U.S. that both of us can agree is a 3rd party source that is nominally impartial may not be perfect).
Originally posted by Flash:
3. Last night Maddow ......I am more than willing to Stand up and have responsible discussions, but it requires more than one side to come to the table and respect the arguments of the other. Bashing FOX news as unreliable when clearly they are not, won't move us forward. Even Obama knows he needs FOX news' audience. |
|
In all fairness, just as you dont want to take FactCheck.org as a reliable source, I disagree to take Fox news as a reliable source. I even provided common folk's words (no propaganda.. just random opinions) that say why Fox News may be unreliable as a source of truth. But you chose to ignore them. You owe an explanation wny.
Also, you dont have any proof against FactCheck.org being an unreliable source, yet you expect me to believe it is so.
In light of the above, how can you expect a person from the other side to have a knowledgible and informed discussion? It is a genuine question.
So now, we have two choices:
[1] You will propose a news source that is nominally impartial and I agree to that and we carry on a meaningful discussion.
[2] You will say that there isnt such source (not even marginally impartial), in which case we will end this discussion, and you will stop posting on this forum.
I have little hopes of [2] happening, and I hope [1] happens. Now if none of them happen, I prove my point that all you want to do here is have factless debates, and have still not cleared your intentions.
If I remember correctly, you are an English major. What do you equate a factless conversation with, if not a baseless and endless stirrup?
I await your pointed responses to the above, not another pile of baseless statements.
ETA: I just read your comments on Obama's tax plans and how McCain's is better for those making above 111,645 USD (not 66K) per year. I am aware of that. And I appreciate how you pointed to that. Here is a breakup of his proposed plan, the original source being a tax policy center, not NPR. Now this would be a factual discussion, unlike a factless one. Also, from the same source,
"In the end, the Tax Policy Center's Burman says, both Obama's and McCain's plans would add to the national debt."
This is what I call impartial reporting. No matter who gets elected, the national debt will rise because of the current turmoil.. and not all their individual plans be get executed right away... not just Obama's.. that is impartiality. Still, I just believe more in Obama's ideals than McCain's. Its not Obama's fault that he is not as old as McCain? Obama has a whole life remaining ahead.. and I refuse not give his ideas a chance JUST because McCain has been around longer besides other issues. I am sorry but we are not talking about cheese here that gets better with age... and even if we did, some of them start to smell pretty bad:-) |
1. I had completely missed your reply contained in the first part of the above quote. In reading it now, I'll comment with the following:
a. I said that factcheck.org was not immediately acceptable to me without more assessment and further that it may be the best we have. Eqsite then replied with information about factcheck being founded by a Mccain supporter. That is new news to me and I'll verify it. It might change the dynamics or it might not.
2. I have not dismissed every source and even used Ray's source "the St Petersburg Times" in an example of my own.
3. You contuinue to claim that Obama's tax benefit begins at 116K instead of 66k and attempted to correct me, even though I provided a link (CNN article) which showed a $200 advantage at 66K. I am not sure what you definition of savings is, but to me $200 saved is better than $200 taken. So to continue to state that I wil not use any sources or facts is wrong.
4. You quote the Tax Policy Center in saying that both plans will add to the deficit. I agree and use this as further evidence that Obama is less than truthful - even referencing a morning article with Obama's own campaign hedging on his tax promises due to the financial crisis. To me that simply supports my claim that Obama is not truthful on his tax policy. We both know (or should know) that Obama cannot reduce taxes on 95% of americans (working or otherwise). This crisis won't allow it. Yet it continues as a campaign point. A false one. One that you seem ready to ignore. The very action you are charging me with.
5. I asked you for independent sources which you countered with by asking me for sources. I guess neither of us will offer up any sources.
6. You believe more in Obama's ideals than McCains. Thats fair. Is this factcheck verifiable? Do I need or require proof of this before I accept it from you? No. You typed as a fact, therefore unl;ess you give me reason to doubt you, then I accept is as so. You believe Obama's ideals better. Great. Which ideals are these? The ones that he shares with Reverand Wright? Or Louis Farakhan? Or William Ayers? Or Resko? Or Khalidi? Or are they the ideals he talks about in this presiddentail campaign where he himself states that he is targeting moderate republicans. Are you saying that you agree with moderate republican values?
7. I may very well choose to end participation - but if and when I do, it will be on my terms, not because you are irritated by a fly at a picnic. [/quote]
Thanks for the reply. You seemed to take it all in another depth for discussion, and I can reply to each of them individually, but we need to agree on a non-commercial nominally impartial source first (it will be hard to find a commercial yet bias free source). I respectfully refuse to proceed with a jungle discussion without putting base to the source of the facts first. And so rather than putting more points out in the sea, I propose this simple 3 step plan:
[1] I propose NPR.org as a non-commercial nominally impartial source of information to base our further discussion upon. It has been equally accused to be a conservative as well as a liberal biased source at different times (FACT: See here). Do you agree? If yes, ignore points [2] and [3] and lets move forward with the discussion. If not, lets move to point [2].
[2] Since you do not agree with the source I provided, go ahead and propose a non-commercial news source that is nominally impartial (along with facts link) and I will see if I agree to that and we continue a meaningful discussion. If I agree, we ignore point [3] and move ahead with the discussion, ONLY citing facts from this agreed upon source. If I dont agree, we will move to point [3].
[3] We both fail to agree on a single impartial source. In this case, I have nothing further to discuss with you in an honorable and respectable gentleman's discussion. Henceforth, you will not claim that nobody stood up to a logical and factual discussion with you in this forum, and I will not either. However, you were provided with a non-commercial marginally impartial source in [1] that you didnt agree to proceed with.
[4] If you refuse to choose any of the above 3 choices, I will take it that you do not want to lead a logical fact-backed conversation... and although I cannot ask you to not to post here anymore, you will come across as a hollow speaker with no facts and no willingness to have an informed discussion and I will stop paying attention to your posts personally, advising others to do the same. You will obviously be free to do the same.
So what is your choice? [1], [2], or [3]? |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 04:01:13 PM · #782 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I found this portion of your link very interesting:
" To be clear, we don't see evidence that Obama is crawfishing backward from his tax plan, as McCain implies. Most of the statements McCain refers to are consistent with Obama's long-stated tax policies"
Doesn't seem all that misleading to me.
Ray |
Yet you conviently left out the more important portion where they concluded that McCian's claims "were mostly true". Not slightly true or misleading but mostly true, which is at least one example from a source of your choosing that McCain is accurate in his representation of Obama's tax plan.
Now I'll grant you that there are many examples on both sides where liberties have been taken. This just isn't one of them. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 04:05:14 PM · #783 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Let the detours, ramblings, rantings and red herrings begin. |
Where were you when NikonJeb's Hummer hijack took place?
Or do you reserve those charges just for me?
From YOU, of course, it's totally expected. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 04:07:13 PM · #784 |
Originally posted by Prash:
I dont think you read all my posts in this thread or you would have found the facts, not just opinions.. so I recommend you go back and read them first. |
Ah, but I DID read all of your posts in this thread. Perhaps it is YOU who should go back and refresh your memory of what YOU ( not others ) said.
Originally posted by Prash:
Now, you are not Flash, and I dont want to further this discussion assuming you represent his answers. I will reply to his pointed answers, rather than your vague attacks, if and when they come. |
But won't respond to MINE????? Why not? Afraid that you won't "stand up"?
|
|
|
|
10/31/2008 04:10:19 PM · #785 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Flash:
Thanks for the link to the St Petersburg Times politico site. Here is a finding that McCains portrayal of Obama's misleading tax claims is found to be mostly true. {snip} |
I found this portion of your link very interesting:
" To be clear, we don't see evidence that Obama is crawfishing backward from his tax plan, as McCain implies. Most of the statements McCain refers to are consistent with Obama's long-stated tax policies..." Doesn't seem all that misleading to me. |
Exactly. Flash, did you even understand -- or bother to read -- the full finding? You're just providing further proof that the only way to make McCain look good is through distortion, or by hoping the voters only read headlines and not full stories.
Go back to that site and sort on the "pants-on-fire" lies, or even the "mostly untrue" ones. Both parties and their supporters have made their share of false statements, but those by the conservatives far outweigh those by the liberals.
EDIT:
Originally posted by Flash:
Yet you conviently left out the more important portion where they concluded that McCian's claims were deemed "mostly true". |
Yes, but again that only helps your point of view if you don't bother to read the whole article. YOU conveniently leave out WHY the claims "were mostly true."
Message edited by author 2008-10-31 16:14:29. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 04:13:15 PM · #786 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by RonB:
Snipped a long diatribe..... |
Why doesn't it surprise me that you'd be an advocate of Fox? |
For the same reason that it doesn't surprise ME that you would assume that I'm an advocate of Fox based on nothing I've posted.
Time to do your homework, Jeb. Scour the site looking for quotes that I am an advocate of Fox. The length of time it takes to respond will be an indication of how long the search takes. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 04:13:36 PM · #787 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Let the detours, ramblings, rantings and red herrings begin. |
Where were you when NikonJeb's Hummer hijack took place?
Or do you reserve those charges just for me?
From YOU, of course, it's totally expected. |
You're the master.
NJ's a mere padawan compared to you. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 04:19:23 PM · #788 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Where were you when NikonJeb's Hummer hijack took place? |
Excuse me......I was merely establishing my credentials to someone who called me out.
I did.
|
|
|
|
10/31/2008 04:20:48 PM · #789 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Let the detours, ramblings, rantings and red herrings begin. |
LOL |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 04:22:01 PM · #790 |
Originally posted by RonB:
For the same reason that it doesn't surprise ME that you would assume that I'm an advocate of Fox based on nothing I've posted.
Time to do your homework, Jeb. Scour the site looking for quotes that I am an advocate of Fox. The length of time it takes to respond will be an indication of how long the search takes. |
Well, that would indicate to me that you're just trying to pick a fight then as opposed to trying to establish the veracity of what most here have stated regarding Fox.
So yes, I assumed that you were a Fox advocate instead of merely being adversaerial.
My mistake.
|
|
|
|
10/31/2008 04:22:51 PM · #791 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
NJ's a mere padawan compared to you. |
HEY!!!
That's MR. Padawan to you, bucko!.......8>)
|
|
|
|
10/31/2008 04:24:06 PM · #792 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by RonB:
Snipped a long diatribe..... |
Why doesn't it surprise me that you'd be an advocate of Fox? |
For the same reason that it doesn't surprise ME that you would assume that I'm an advocate of Fox based on nothing I've posted.
Time to do your homework, Jeb. Scour the site looking for quotes that I am an advocate of Fox. The length of time it takes to respond will be an indication of how long the search takes. |
Based on Ron's previous arguments in other threads, there are no such things as facts. Facts require verification and if the conclusions based on logical arguments don't suit his opinion, he simply proposes raising the level of proof to an unattainable level, much the same way that the tobacco companies for years claimed that, despite numerous studies to the contrary, there was no proof that smoking causes cancer.
Message edited by author 2008-10-31 16:24:53. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 04:42:00 PM · #793 |
Originally posted by RonB:
But won't respond to MINE????? Why not? Afraid that you won't "stand up"? |
There's an illogical supposition.
Registered: 11/28/2003
Challenges entered: 10
Last challenge entered: 10/05/2004
Comments made: 120
Last comment made: 04/22/2004
Forums posts: 2,125
Last forum post made: 10/31/2008
One can do a quick forum search on the your username, Ron, and quickly see that out of the last 50 forum threads you contributed to, nearly all are political or religious threads. So I'd like to ask you the same question Louis asked Flash, i.e., Why do you come to DPC?
|
|
|
|
10/31/2008 04:46:42 PM · #794 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by RonB:
But won't respond to MINE????? Why not? Afraid that you won't "stand up"? |
There's an illogical supposition.
Registered: 11/28/2003
Challenges entered: 10
Last challenge entered: 10/05/2004
Comments made: 120
Last comment made: 04/22/2004
Forums posts: 2,125
Last forum post made: 10/31/2008
One can do a quick forum search on the your username, Ron, and quickly see that out of the last 50 forum threads you contributed to, nearly all are political or religious threads. So I'd like to ask you the same question Louis asked Flash, i.e., Why do you come to DPC? |
If you search the DPC Fora you will see that the question has already been asked, and answered. Hint: It's in at least one of the RANT threads in which I have participated. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 05:01:17 PM · #795 |
Originally posted by citymars:
One can do a quick forum search on the your username, Ron, and quickly see that out of the last 50 forum threads you contributed to, nearly all are political or religious threads. So I'd like to ask you the same question Louis asked Flash, i.e., Why do you come to DPC? |
I come for the atmosphere and free beer nuts!
|
|
|
|
10/31/2008 05:11:12 PM · #796 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by RonB:
For the same reason that it doesn't surprise ME that you would assume that I'm an advocate of Fox based on nothing I've posted.
Time to do your homework, Jeb. Scour the site looking for quotes that I am an advocate of Fox. The length of time it takes to respond will be an indication of how long the search takes. |
Well, that would indicate to me that you're just trying to pick a fight then as opposed to trying to establish the veracity of what most here have stated regarding Fox. |
Well, I'm neither trying to establish anything about Fox nor trying to pick a fight.
I'm merely taking the opportunity to point out the apparent hypocrisy of one who seems to ( selectively ) require "facts" from some, but not others ( including himself ). If one demands a response from Flash as to why he doesn't ( or won't ) provide facts, then he should be willing to respond why he does not ( or will not ) provide facts, himself.
By the way, I don't typically attempt to establish the veracity of opinions ( since everyone is entitle to at least one ) and what "most here have stated regarding Fox" are not "facts", they are opinions.
Now if someone were to make a statement of FACT regarding Fox News, then I "might" be tempted to establish its veracity - or lack thereof. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 05:26:15 PM · #797 |
| Have you watched Outfoxed? I have. They took a rigid approach to analyzing the programming and discovered that it is neither fair nor balanced. This, together with the views of other journalists and the evidence of my own eyes when I watch Fox News, is fact-based evidence enough for me. So I guess the question remains, what's Flash's problem with factcheck.org? |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 06:30:57 PM · #798 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Prash:
I dont think you read all my posts in this thread or you would have found the facts, not just opinions.. so I recommend you go back and read them first. |
Ah, but I DID read all of your posts in this thread. Perhaps it is YOU who should go back and refresh your memory of what YOU ( not others ) said.
Originally posted by Prash:
Now, you are not Flash, and I dont want to further this discussion assuming you represent his answers. I will reply to his pointed answers, rather than your vague attacks, if and when they come. |
But won't respond to MINE????? Why not? Afraid that you won't "stand up"? |
Because yours are vague attacks in an impulse, they are not thought after and will break the chain of conversation that Flash and I started. I am not a proponent of random arguments. If you are willing to keep your McCain like hot temper away and are willing to take a logical discussion with a calm mind, lets talk.
ETA: Heres another reason: 8 out of your last 10 thread activities are in the RANT section (just like Flash). Also, you have participated in only 10 challenges on DPC since 2003. Let me be very clear: your main aim of visiting this site appears to be to vent out on people.. perhaps because not many think like you do, and perhaps you think they are stupid and its your responsibility to preach to them.
You might be better off with a blog of your own to spread that knowledge in that case... leave DPC alone for a community of people who genuinely enjoy photography and do not just come here with ulterior motives - spreading their political beliefs being one of them. The slightest problem being: not as many people may visit your blog with the attitude you keep.
My advice: dont displace your frustrations here. Find an appropriate website or portal to do that.
Message edited by author 2008-10-31 18:38:32. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 06:44:21 PM · #799 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by Flash:
1. I am not convinced that such a thing as "impartial facts" exist - at least from the standpoint that we both agree that they are impartial.
|
Well then we can never have a healthy discussion, can we? I firmly believe in bringing facts to the table before addressing conflicting issue(s). And you firmly believe that there can never be perfectly impartial fact sources.
There is one way out though: can you propose a nominally impartial source of facts from your best knowledge and we can try to see if I agree that is a 'workable' source, and then we base all our statements on facts from that source?
Originally posted by Flash:
2. If you have a list of truly impartial sources (and FactCheck.org is not one of them), I will gladly assess it and see if we cannot have a reasonable discussion.
|
Like I said above, your beliefs lead you to dismiss any source that I provide. I respectfully invite you to provide a source, which is -preferrably- not a big business house but a non-profit organization.. or it can even be a source from outside the U.S. that both of us can agree is a 3rd party source that is nominally impartial may not be perfect).
Originally posted by Flash:
3. Last night Maddow ......I am more than willing to Stand up and have responsible discussions, but it requires more than one side to come to the table and respect the arguments of the other. Bashing FOX news as unreliable when clearly they are not, won't move us forward. Even Obama knows he needs FOX news' audience. |
|
In all fairness, just as you dont want to take FactCheck.org as a reliable source, I disagree to take Fox news as a reliable source. I even provided common folk's words (no propaganda.. just random opinions) that say why Fox News may be unreliable as a source of truth. But you chose to ignore them. You owe an explanation wny.
Also, you dont have any proof against FactCheck.org being an unreliable source, yet you expect me to believe it is so.
In light of the above, how can you expect a person from the other side to have a knowledgible and informed discussion? It is a genuine question.
So now, we have two choices:
[1] You will propose a news source that is nominally impartial and I agree to that and we carry on a meaningful discussion.
[2] You will say that there isnt such source (not even marginally impartial), in which case we will end this discussion, and you will stop posting on this forum.
I have little hopes of [2] happening, and I hope [1] happens. Now if none of them happen, I prove my point that all you want to do here is have factless debates, and have still not cleared your intentions.
If I remember correctly, you are an English major. What do you equate a factless conversation with, if not a baseless and endless stirrup?
I await your pointed responses to the above, not another pile of baseless statements.
ETA: I just read your comments on Obama's tax plans and how McCain's is better for those making above 111,645 USD (not 66K) per year. I am aware of that. And I appreciate how you pointed to that. Here is a breakup of his proposed plan, the original source being a tax policy center, not NPR. Now this would be a factual discussion, unlike a factless one. Also, from the same source,
"In the end, the Tax Policy Center's Burman says, both Obama's and McCain's plans would add to the national debt."
This is what I call impartial reporting. No matter who gets elected, the national debt will rise because of the current turmoil.. and not all their individual plans be get executed right away... not just Obama's.. that is impartiality. Still, I just believe more in Obama's ideals than McCain's. Its not Obama's fault that he is not as old as McCain? Obama has a whole life remaining ahead.. and I refuse not give his ideas a chance JUST because McCain has been around longer besides other issues. I am sorry but we are not talking about cheese here that gets better with age... and even if we did, some of them start to smell pretty bad:-) |
1. I had completely missed your reply contained in the first part of the above quote. In reading it now, I'll comment with the following:
a. I said that factcheck.org was not immediately acceptable to me without more assessment and further that it may be the best we have. Eqsite then replied with information about factcheck being founded by a Mccain supporter. That is new news to me and I'll verify it. It might change the dynamics or it might not.
2. I have not dismissed every source and even used Ray's source "the St Petersburg Times" in an example of my own.
3. You contuinue to claim that Obama's tax benefit begins at 116K instead of 66k and attempted to correct me, even though I provided a link (CNN article) which showed a $200 advantage at 66K. I am not sure what you definition of savings is, but to me $200 saved is better than $200 taken. So to continue to state that I wil not use any sources or facts is wrong.
4. You quote the Tax Policy Center in saying that both plans will add to the deficit. I agree and use this as further evidence that Obama is less than truthful - even referencing a morning article with Obama's own campaign hedging on his tax promises due to the financial crisis. To me that simply supports my claim that Obama is not truthful on his tax policy. We both know (or should know) that Obama cannot reduce taxes on 95% of americans (working or otherwise). This crisis won't allow it. Yet it continues as a campaign point. A false one. One that you seem ready to ignore. The very action you are charging me with.
5. I asked you for independent sources which you countered with by asking me for sources. I guess neither of us will offer up any sources.
6. You believe more in Obama's ideals than McCains. Thats fair. Is this factcheck verifiable? Do I need or require proof of this before I accept it from you? No. You typed as a fact, therefore unl;ess you give me reason to doubt you, then I accept is as so. You believe Obama's ideals better. Great. Which ideals are these? The ones that he shares with Reverand Wright? Or Louis Farakhan? Or William Ayers? Or Resko? Or Khalidi? Or are they the ideals he talks about in this presiddentail campaign where he himself states that he is targeting moderate republicans. Are you saying that you agree with moderate republican values?
7. I may very well choose to end participation - but if and when I do, it will be on my terms, not because you are irritated by a fly at a picnic. |
Thanks for the reply. You seemed to take it all in another depth for discussion, and I can reply to each of them individually, but we need to agree on a non-commercial nominally impartial source first (it will be hard to find a commercial yet bias free source). I respectfully refuse to proceed with a jungle discussion without putting base to the source of the facts first. And so rather than putting more points out in the sea, I propose this simple 3 step plan:
[1] I propose NPR.org as a non-commercial nominally impartial source of information to base our further discussion upon. It has been equally accused to be a conservative as well as a liberal biased source at different times (FACT: See here). Do you agree? If yes, ignore points [2] and [3] and lets move forward with the discussion. If not, lets move to point [2].
[2] Since you do not agree with the source I provided, go ahead and propose a non-commercial news source that is nominally impartial (along with facts link) and I will see if I agree to that and we continue a meaningful discussion. If I agree, we ignore point [3] and move ahead with the discussion, ONLY citing facts from this agreed upon source. If I dont agree, we will move to point [3].
[3] We both fail to agree on a single impartial source. In this case, I have nothing further to discuss with you in an honorable and respectable gentleman's discussion. Henceforth, you will not claim that nobody stood up to a logical and factual discussion with you in this forum, and I will not either. However, you were provided with a non-commercial marginally impartial source in [1] that you didnt agree to proceed with.
[4] If you refuse to choose any of the above 3 choices, I will take it that you do not want to lead a logical fact-backed conversation... and although I cannot ask you to not to post here anymore, you will come across as a hollow speaker with no facts and no willingness to have an informed discussion and I will stop paying attention to your posts personally, advising others to do the same. You will obviously be free to do the same.
So what is your choice? [1], [2], or [3]? [/quote]
Flash, do you want to continue this discussion or not? Everytime there is a talk about a logical approach, you seem to shy away.
These are three simple steps. Which one do you choose? |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 08:10:29 PM · #800 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I'm merely taking the opportunity to point out the apparent hypocrisy of one who seems to ( selectively ) require "facts" from some, but not others ( including himself ). If one demands a response from Flash as to why he doesn't ( or won't ) provide facts, then he should be willing to respond why he does not ( or will not ) provide facts, himself. |
So.....you come into a part of a civil discussion between two people who seem to be going back and forth, which up 'til now you have not, and you decide you're going to tell one of them how to be.
And that isn't picking a fight how?
As was pointed out, you really don't seem to participate except when you think you can cause trouble.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 09:18:54 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 09:18:54 PM EDT.
|
