- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Bachmann's hubby might be taking Medicare for "gay therapy"
Bachmann's hubby might be taking Medicare for "gay therapy"Follow
How the fuck is giving up your job to be a a major influence on the most powerful man in the world demeaning? Was she God beforehand?
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
nonwto wrote:
Fair enough, I'll concede the fraud point. You're right, there's no solid evidence of it. It was only strongly implied in the OP (it's all his fault).
To be far, the OP just quoted and linked to a far left blog. They engaged in innuendo and wordplay to make nothing seem like something. It's why you should read what's actually there and not what the source makes it seem like. They are not always the same thing.
Quote:
However, it doesn't really matter.
Of course it doesn't matter (to you).
Quote:
Bachmann isn't fit to hold office, and the fact she has any power now is in itself a strong argument against democracy.
She's not fit to hold office because you don't agree with her positions? There's that rhetoric again. How about just saying that you don't agree with her positions/platform and state why? What's with the constant need for hyperbole? What exactly do you think is required to be "fit to hold office"?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
To be far, the OP just quoted and linked to a far left blog. They engaged in innuendo and wordplay to make nothing seem like something. It's why you should read what's actually there and not what the source makes it seem like.
Irony Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
To be far, the OP just quoted and linked to a far left blog. They engaged in innuendo and wordplay to make nothing seem like something. It's why you should read what's actually there and not what the source makes it seem like.
Irony Joph, it isn't nice to point out someone else's hypocrisy.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
gbaji wrote:
nonwto wrote:
Fair enough, I'll concede the fraud point. You're right, there's no solid evidence of it. It was only strongly implied in the OP (it's all his fault).
To be far, the OP just quoted and linked to a far left blog. They engaged in innuendo and wordplay to make nothing seem like something. It's why you should read what's actually there and not what the source makes it seem like. They are not always the same thing.
Quote:
However, it doesn't really matter.
Of course it doesn't matter (to you).
Quote:
Bachmann isn't fit to hold office, and the fact she has any power now is in itself a strong argument against democracy.
She's not fit to hold office because you don't agree with her positions? There's that rhetoric again. How about just saying that you don't agree with her positions/platform and state why? What's with the constant need for hyperbole? What exactly do you think is required to be "fit to hold office"?
Nononono nope. Nope. She's not fit for office because she's a moron without a basic grasp of US history. That's an objective fact. Subjectively, I oppose her because she's a zealot, a corporate shill and a ******* idiot. If it were my decision, I'd have her and her supporters lined up and shot.
Let me say again that I'm extremely further to the right than you are. I'm hardly concerned with your ******** dichotomies, librul conspiracies or claims that I've been told to believe this by the media. It's simply not true or really even possible.
idiggory wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
To be far, the OP just quoted and linked to a far left blog. They engaged in innuendo and wordplay to make nothing seem like something. It's why you should read what's actually there and not what the source makes it seem like.
Irony Joph, it isn't nice to point out someone else's hypocrisy.
It's not hypocrisy on my part. I suspect you guys are projecting. Are you guys seriously trying to say that I regularly just link to far right sources, with no analysis or comments of my own? That's kinda the exact opposite of my posting style. I write what I believe. I provide my own rationale for those things. I only go find sources and cites when people like you demand them.
So yeah. Projection.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
idiggory wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
To be far, the OP just quoted and linked to a far left blog. They engaged in innuendo and wordplay to make nothing seem like something. It's why you should read what's actually there and not what the source makes it seem like.
Irony Joph, it isn't nice to point out someone else's hypocrisy.
It's not hypocrisy on my part. I suspect you guys are projecting. Are you guys seriously trying to say that I regularly just link to far right sources, with no analysis or comments of my own? That's kinda the exact opposite of my posting style. I write what I believe. I provide my own rationale for those things. I only go find sources and cites when people like you demand them.
So yeah. Projection.
Willful misunderstanding? It's easy to see that they meant that you:
Quote:
engage in innuendo and wordplay to make nothing seem like something
Which you unquestionably do, and often.
gbaji wrote:
It's not hypocrisy on my part. I suspect you guys are projecting. Are you guys seriously trying to say that I regularly just link to far right sources, with no analysis or comments of my own?
I wouldn't call you regurgitating right wing media sources in different words "analysis" but I guess it makes you feel better. The only one who perhaps believes that you're doing some independent thought is you, and I suspect that's only true if you're on some heavy psychotropic drugs.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's not hypocrisy on my part. I suspect you guys are projecting. Are you guys seriously trying to say that I regularly just link to far right sources, with no analysis or comments of my own?
I wouldn't call you regurgitating right wing media sources in different words "analysis" but I guess it makes you feel better.
Except that I don't do this Joph. Someone brings up a topic, I respond to it based on my own views and opinions. I don't wait for someone on TV to tell me what I should think. You assume this because this is how you form your opinions. You then project this onto me.
Quote:
The only one who perhaps believes that you're doing some independent thought is you, and I suspect that's only true if you're on some heavy psychotropic drugs.
Which shows just how ridiculous your assumptions are. What's so amazingly funny is that I was being accused of this same thing 8+ years ago when I had never in my life listened to a conservative talk radio station, and couldn't find Fox News on my cable (and had never tried). I remember having people (including you) telling me I was repeating the words of people I'd never heard of before.
So forgive me if I'm unimpressed with your ability to detect someone who's repeating rhetoric Joph. I know that I don't do this. You assume I do. I'm going to go with me knowing better how I form my opinions than you.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Except that I don't do this Joph.
Hahahahaha...
Ah, you.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Just for clarity- the insult was "you just regurgitate ******* crazy conservative radio talking points" and your defense was "nuh-uh, I come up with identical ******* crazy talking points all on my own!"
That's what you're going to go with? Really?
That's what you're going to go with? Really?
Not to mention the fact that the only "proof" he's ever able to offer for his ideas largely comes from conservative blog posts.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
When my Uncle was in college he was at a diner with one of his friends on their way back to campus when he sees this bunch of rednecks heckling and eventually assaulting this black guy trying to make a phone call outside. He told the waitress to use the phone in the back to call 911 and as a result ended up getting called in as a witness as well. So, he's sitting in the courtroom and they're examining one of the rednecks, and the prosecution asks, "So, were you boys drinking when you saw that man outside the diner that night?", and the redneck starts to say "yes", but then he stops himself, sits there for a second, then with a sneaky smile and a gleam in his eye sits up and says, "No sir, we had dun quit!"
It's something like that.
Edited, Jul 7th 2011 5:46pm by shintasama
It's something like that.
Edited, Jul 7th 2011 5:46pm by shintasama
idiggory wrote:
Not to mention the fact that the only "proof" he's ever able to offer for his ideas largely comes from conservative blog posts.
You're kidding, right? I almost never link to blog sites at all, let alone conservative blog sites.
The irony here is that the OP started out by linking to a liberal blog site, which in turn referenced as its source... another liberal blog site! Yet this didn't stop several of the forum liberals from posting as though the inference from the OPs "source" must be absolutely true.
Like I said: Projection.
Edited, Jul 7th 2011 3:14pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I've only ever seen you link to blogs or op-eds. Unless you just happen to provide sources in all the threads I don't read, I'm inclined to believe my views.
And the OP made it explicitly clear that this was from a biased news source. You've never done that (nor do you even realize that you do it, I imagine).
And the OP made it explicitly clear that this was from a biased news source. You've never done that (nor do you even realize that you do it, I imagine).
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
idiggory wrote:
I've only ever seen you link to blogs or op-eds.
Blogs or op-eds? More op-eds than blogs though, right? And mostly op-eds from actual legitimate news sources, right?
Really? That's the best you can do? How about you go find the last 10 sources I've linked and determine how many of them were conservative blogs. That would be what we call "objective data". As opposed to the ridiculously false claims you're making.
Quote:
Unless you just happen to provide sources in all the threads I don't read, I'm inclined to believe my views.
Your views are wrong. It's self delusion at best, probably with a bit of defensiveness thrown in for good measure. I don't usually use sources at all. I debate and discuss topics based on my own knowledge and beliefs. I usually only provide a source for something when someone demands it, and even then I usually attempt to limit my sources to facts, not opinion. And by that I don't mean "opinions that I believe are facts", but sources that provide data which we can use to derive opinions on.
Quote:
And the OP made it explicitly clear that this was from a biased news source. You've never done that (nor do you even realize that you do it, I imagine).
It's not that I don't realize it, but that you are imagining it. I don't do this. Other posters do.
EDIT: I'm reasonably certain that the last source I linked was the log for the Paul Revere Wiki Page. Not for opinions, but to show who was editing the page and why. ie: Data. I'm reasonably sure that the link before that was to historical budget data from the congressional budget office. Another clearly far right blog site just chock full of crazy opinions for me to parrot.
By all means go look at what I actually link in my posts. It's not what you think.
EDIT2: Oh wait! I might have linked to something in one of the gay marriage threads. Where I provided several links to sources talking about how the states interest in marriage has to do with procreation. I suppose you could say that's opinion, but my purpose for providing the links wasn't to say "I'm right because these other people agree with me", but to disprove the argument that I must be wrong because "no one but you makes this argument".
And honestly, I have no clue if those sources were "far right blogs" or not. The point is that I don't read stuff on the internet and then form opinions based on what I read. I form opinions based on my own observations and knowledge, and only provide links when needed to make some related point. Many others on this forum start with "OMG! Look at this absolutely true information I ran across on some blog site!" even when the information makes absolutely no sense and has holes in it a mile wide (like the source used in the OP). It's not just biased, it's nonsensical. There's a difference.
Edited, Jul 7th 2011 3:41pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
An op-ed is an op-ed is an op-ed. There's no substantial difference between citing them and citing a blog. Sorry lad, that's just how it is.
nonwto wrote:
An op-ed is an op-ed is an op-ed. There's no substantial difference between citing them and citing a blog. Sorry lad, that's just how it is.
Wow! Just wow...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
The irony here is that the OP started out by linking to a liberal blog site, which in turn referenced as its source... another liberal blog site! Yet this didn't stop several of the forum liberals from posting as though the inference from the OPs "source" must be absolutely true.
Almost like using opinion columns from LifeNews and CNS News as your "sources", huh?
Quote:
The point is that I don't read stuff on the internet and then form opinions based on what I read. I form opinions based on my own observations
This might be true. I assume you start off hearing "your" opinions on talk radio and FOX and then turn towards right-wing internet pseudo-news media to back up what you've already been told to believe. Obviously I can't prove it and you'll never admit to it, but I've never seen anything counter to it, either.
Edited, Jul 7th 2011 5:49pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
nonwto wrote:
An op-ed is an op-ed is an op-ed. There's no substantial difference between citing them and citing a blog. Sorry lad, that's just how it is.
Wow! Just wow...
Kid has a point.
Oh! And top talking like this...
You cunt.
Op-Ed pieces are largely opinions by people usually unaffiliated with the news source publishing them. They aren't the result of the rigorous fact-checking and journalistic standards of the institution, they are purely the result of their writers' journalistic integrity and knowledge.
Now, most quality journalistic sources will still do basic fact-checking for the piece. That's (I HOPE) true. But the problem is that they aren't written by journalists using the words of experts. They've often made some name for themselves as writers, but not necessarily in the field they are writing about and they almost never experts on the subject in any kind of real-world or academic sense.
And this is true of all news sources where the author of the piece isn't a member of the organization. At the end of the day, they primarily express opinion, not fact.
That's not to say academics and experts never write op-ed pieces. That's definitely not the case. The point is that I've never seen you link an op-ed that included anything that was clearly fact, clearly cited, or from an author that should be considered reliable.
Are op-eds better than blogs? Probably. Are they useful for proving jack squat unless written by someone you can prove knows what they are talking about? No.
[EDIT]
You know, the grammar mistakes in this make me suspect that I am drunk. But I haven't had any alcohol. Interesting.
Edited, Jul 7th 2011 7:04pm by idiggory
Now, most quality journalistic sources will still do basic fact-checking for the piece. That's (I HOPE) true. But the problem is that they aren't written by journalists using the words of experts. They've often made some name for themselves as writers, but not necessarily in the field they are writing about and they almost never experts on the subject in any kind of real-world or academic sense.
And this is true of all news sources where the author of the piece isn't a member of the organization. At the end of the day, they primarily express opinion, not fact.
That's not to say academics and experts never write op-ed pieces. That's definitely not the case. The point is that I've never seen you link an op-ed that included anything that was clearly fact, clearly cited, or from an author that should be considered reliable.
Are op-eds better than blogs? Probably. Are they useful for proving jack squat unless written by someone you can prove knows what they are talking about? No.
[EDIT]
You know, the grammar mistakes in this make me suspect that I am drunk. But I haven't had any alcohol. Interesting.
Edited, Jul 7th 2011 7:04pm by idiggory
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The irony here is that the OP started out by linking to a liberal blog site, which in turn referenced as its source... another liberal blog site! Yet this didn't stop several of the forum liberals from posting as though the inference from the OPs "source" must be absolutely true.
Almost like using opinion columns from LifeNews and CNS News as your "sources", huh?
Or like using op-eds from the WSJ, and data from the CBO!
I don't "parrot" those sources. I use them for data. That's it. If I link to LifeNews or CNS (whatever those are), it's not to say "I'm right because these people agree with me", but because there some statement or reference on that source that provides information which supports my own argument.
Or is this going to be like the time I linked to some blog site because it had links to the Bureau of Labor Statistics with data that was handy for what I was arguing, and you (and several others) dismissed it because "OMG! You got that from <some conservative source>". Um... It's a page with links to government data. It was that data I was basing my argument on, not the page which happened to have already collected a set of useful links to the tables.
Quote:
This might be true. I assume you start off hearing "your" opinions on talk radio and FOX and then turn towards right-wing internet pseudo-news media to back up what you've already been told to believe. Obviously I can't prove it and you'll never admit to it, but I've never seen anything counter to it, either.
You assume wrong. The opinions I hold I held long before I'd ever watched 1 minute of Fox News, or listened to even a second of any conservative talk radio. What's so funny about this is that it's like many of you just can't comprehend how someone could form opinions about the world around him without some source like that telling them what to think. Which speaks volumes about you guys, but not about me.
The only reason I ever listen to those sources is because people like you keep insisting that I'm just parroting them, so I want to actually know what they're actually saying. Believe it or not, when I first started listening to any political talk, I chose to listen to Air America only for about 6 months. I wanted to make sure I listened to the "other side" for some time before listening or watching any conservative sources just to make sure I wasn't being biased. Nope. I concluded that the liberals on Air America were nutjobs without ever listening to a single conservative voice mention them, or counter them.
I speak based on my own opinions formed by simply observing the world around me. Why they hell is that so hard for you to accept?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
If I link to LifeNews or CNS (whatever those are)
Hahahahahahahahaha...
Shit, you should at least try to retain a little credibility. Just to keep up appearances
Quote:
You assume wrong
As I said, you'll never admit it but I've never seen a single thing from you to make me question it.
Quote:
Why they hell is that so hard for you to accept?
Maybe because parrots are trained to speak; they don't fly around the jungle reciting the stock Limbaugh/Beck/Breitbart right-wing talking points for the day by astounding coincidence.
Edited, Jul 7th 2011 6:14pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
Or is this going to be like the time I linked to some blog site because it had links to the Bureau of Labor Statistics with data that was handy for what I was arguing, and you (and several others) dismissed it because "OMG! You got that from <some conservative source>". Um... It's a page with links to government data. It was that data I was basing my argument on, not the page which happened to have already collected a set of useful links to the tables.
I've only ever seen you link to DBL once, and you intentionally tried to obscure the context of the data for your own benefit. And it ultimately proved you wrong, which was the funny part.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Kavekk wrote:
gbaji wrote:
nonwto wrote:
An op-ed is an op-ed is an op-ed. There's no substantial difference between citing them and citing a blog. Sorry lad, that's just how it is.
Wow! Just wow...
Kid has a point.
Oh! And top talking like this...
You cunt.
Who, me?
Yoo have sumfink against moy diction, guv? Oy'll flap me jaws 'ow e'er oy want, won oy? Oy will, oy will.
Up the Anglophile massiv
Recent Visitors: 378
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (378)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Bachmann's hubby might be taking Medicare for "gay therapy"
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC