Members draelyc Posted August 8, 2006 Members Share Posted August 8, 2006 Originally posted by Echoes sorry chief...you're the one making wild accusations and and proposing crazy conspiracy theories (which I find REALLY funny...) THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU!!! :eek: I've already discussed the simliarities. Now you claim the two situations are not similar. Sorry, bub -- now it's on you, baby. Whatcha gots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Loghead Posted August 8, 2006 Members Share Posted August 8, 2006 Draelyc is saying that people need to maintain a healthy skepticism about their leaders, and Echoes is saying that people should put their trust in leaders so as to assist them in a common effort. Is that about right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members batotman Posted August 8, 2006 Members Share Posted August 8, 2006 http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/category/right-wing-media-bias/ I'm surprised they didn't have Limbaugh on there as a "media bias". {censored} man, almost ALL of that is opinion {censored} and blogs and not relayed as news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted August 8, 2006 Members Share Posted August 8, 2006 Originally posted by batotman http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/category/right-wing-media-bias/I'm surprised they didn't have Limbaugh on there as a "media bias". {censored} man, almost ALL of that is opinion {censored} and blogs and not relayed as news. Some blogs post their sources -- some do not. That's where CRITICAL READING comes in, but whoops -- that's the purview of the elite educated, so nevermind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Echoes Posted August 8, 2006 Members Share Posted August 8, 2006 Originally posted by Loghead Draelyc is saying that people need to maintain a healthy skepticism about their leaders, and Echoes is saying that people should put their trust in leaders so as to assist them in a common effort.Is that about right? no...here: draelyc is saying that people need to maintain a conspiracy theory/complaining/critical attitude (without evidence only speculation) against our President.. where Echoes is saying: war against Iraq AND terrorism is justified and necessary to protect our sovereign freedom (even though it may at times be difficult) and 'Bush Hating' without proper evidence or FACTS is simply shameful treason at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members batotman Posted August 8, 2006 Members Share Posted August 8, 2006 Originally posted by draelyc Some blogs post their sources -- some do not. That's where CRITICAL READING comes in, but whoops -- that's the purview of the elite educated, so nevermind. Either way, citing a BLOG as a {censored}ing media bias only proves one think. You're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members batotman Posted August 8, 2006 Members Share Posted August 8, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Craggin Posted August 8, 2006 Members Share Posted August 8, 2006 Originally posted by batotman Regardless of any party affiliation....that always cracks me up!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members batotman Posted August 8, 2006 Members Share Posted August 8, 2006 Originally posted by Craggin Regardless of any party affiliation....that always cracks me up!!! Yeah that 2000 election was a doosy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted August 8, 2006 Members Share Posted August 8, 2006 Originally posted by Echoes no...here: draelyc is saying that people need to maintain a conspiracy theory/complaining/critical attitude (without evidence only speculation) against our President.. where Echoes is saying: war against Iraq AND terrorism is justified and necessary to protect our sovereign freedom (even though it may at times be difficult) and 'Bush Hating' without proper evidence or FACTS is simply shameful treason at this point. What's shameful is the way you've been presented with copious amounts of evidence and keep on crying "but there's no evidence" anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted August 8, 2006 Members Share Posted August 8, 2006 Originally posted by batotman Either way, citing a BLOG as a {censored}ing media bias only proves one think. You're an idiot. Whatever names you want to call me won't change the fact that I'm right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members batotman Posted August 8, 2006 Members Share Posted August 8, 2006 Originally posted by draelyc Whatever names you want to call me won't change the fact that I'm WRONG. Fixed!Still, a BLOG nobody {censored}ing reads is not the media no how many obscure sources it sites. Is that too hard to comprehend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted August 8, 2006 Members Share Posted August 8, 2006 Originally posted by batotman Yeah, you're "fair and balanced." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members batotman Posted August 8, 2006 Members Share Posted August 8, 2006 Originally posted by draelyc Yeah, you're "fair and balanced." Damn straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted August 8, 2006 Members Share Posted August 8, 2006 Originally posted by batotman Fixed!Still, a BLOG nobody {censored}ing reads is not the media no how many obscure sources it sites. Is that too hard to comprehend? Keep stretching. And while you're at it, since the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion, why don't you post some evidence to *prove* a liberal media bias, and try not to cite as "sources" some ridiculous propaganda organization that's entirely bankrolled by right wing extremist neo-cons whose power base depends upon convincing people the media are "liberally biased"? (I'm speaking of crap "sources" like the Media Research Center.) Uh-oh, might have to back up yer bull{censored}? Panic time.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted August 8, 2006 Members Share Posted August 8, 2006 Originally posted by batotman Damn straight. Hahahahahahahahahahahahaahahaha!!11!!!!!!!111!You actually got me to laugh out loud with that one. Seriously. Thanks. I can go to lunch with a smile on my face, now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Echoes Posted August 8, 2006 Members Share Posted August 8, 2006 Originally posted by draelyc you've been presented with copious amounts of evidence.. you're kidding...right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted August 8, 2006 Members Share Posted August 8, 2006 Originally posted by Echoes you're kidding...right? You can read, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members batotman Posted August 8, 2006 Members Share Posted August 8, 2006 Originally posted by draelyc Keep stretching.And while you're at it, since the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion, why don't you post some evidence to *prove* a liberal media bias, and try not to cite as "sources" some ridiculous propaganda organization that's entirely bankrolled by right wing extremist neo-cons whose power base depends upon convincing people the media are "liberally biased"? (I'm speaking of crap "sources" like the Media Research Center.)Uh-oh, might have to back up yer bull{censored}? Panic time.... Oh yeah I already did. AND those sites had ACTUAL EXAMPLES OF NATONAL NEWS STORIES. Come on man, you act like Moveon.org is a national media outlet like CBS, FOX, NBC instead of what it actually is: a crackpot joke website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members batotman Posted August 8, 2006 Members Share Posted August 8, 2006 Originally posted by draelyc Hahahahahahahahahahahahaahahaha!!11!!!!!!!111! You actually got me to laugh out loud with that one. Seriously. Thanks. I can go to lunch with a smile on my face, now! Yeah, getting people to pay attention to you (even if it is to the point of flat out embarassing you) is always a perk, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members batotman Posted August 8, 2006 Members Share Posted August 8, 2006 Originally posted by Echoes you're kidding...right? No. I think he really believes that 60,000 people die per year in Iraq because Michael "crackpot" Berg says so. Who needs research when you can watch the news, right? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAnd I'm pretty sure he thinks Fahrenheit 9/11 was an actual documentary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Loghead Posted August 8, 2006 Members Share Posted August 8, 2006 Authoritarian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Echoes Posted August 8, 2006 Members Share Posted August 8, 2006 Originally posted by Loghead My suspicion is that the guy doesn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MonikerLewinsky Posted August 8, 2006 Members Share Posted August 8, 2006 - Michael Berg, the father of Nicholas Berg, the young businessman who was beheaded so brutally in Iraq back in May of 2004, opposed Bush. Now his word is rivaled in importance only by the great Cindy Sheehan, mother of intelligence and critical thinking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Craggin Posted August 8, 2006 Members Share Posted August 8, 2006 Originally posted by Echoes ...NEXT LIBERAL IN LINE....NEXT PLEASE! Why do you assume anyone that disagrees with you is a Liberal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.