Bachmann's hubby might be taking Medicare for "gay therapy"Follow

You have an incredibly selective memory. First off, I usually don't link to op-eds. I link to sources of data. All I need to is look at my bookmarks to know which links I've had to use often enough to bookmark. Want to know what's in that list?

- Transcript of Blix Remarks
- Joint Resolution to Authorize the United States Military in Iraq
- Geneva Conventions (fourth specifically)
- Plame Leak timeline
- Hurricane Katrina timeline
- Logical Fallacies
- CIA Countries of the World
- Democrat Quotes on WMD
- John Lock Second Treaties on Civil Government
- Defense Link News Transcript (Something about WMDs in Iraq)
- US Senate Committee on Environment
- What Is Climate
- National Occupational Employment ... (BLS data)


That's seriously all of the politically related bookmarks I have on my computer. No links to Freepers, or Fox News, or whatever Rush, or Beck, or Hannity call their web pages, much less links to Palin, or Bachmann, or any politicians at all. I couldn't tell you what those web sites are. I don't visit them. The only time I see them is when you guys link to them.

I look at data and derive positions. I don't put much weight at all in opinions. I certainly don't decide that something is true or not true simply because someone said so.

No, gbaji. You know, the one who's manner of speech I was parodying.

Keep up.

That fact that you disagreed with my assessment of the data, doesn't change the fact that I linked to the data. How about the dozens of times I've linked to and quoted direct CBO historical budget data? Those don't count either because you don't agree with me?


That's an odd criteria to use, isn't it?

That's right. You NEVER link to conservative bloggers. And marriage is all about creating incentives. Because this blogger says so.


Oh wait.

So a magic owl warned you about the scary Obama/Odinga connection?

I just offered a reference. L2R.

He could at least give himself SOME credibility by just accepting he's wrong (even if it's just occasionally--we might as well start small. I mean, this is probably too much).

I'm not wrong though, so why admit something that isn't true? I don't form my opinions by reading or watching other sources. Every single damn position I hold on politics is derived via logic and from the facts. I spend huge amounts of time typing these explanations up, but most of the time I'm counter by someone else who just links to some other person on the interwebs who disagrees and then declare victory.


It's telling that so many of you simply can't imagine that someone arrives at positions on issues in any method other than being told the "correct" answers. The irony of you guys making this accusation at me is overwhelming.

Someone else mentioned in on this forum Joph. WTF?

You're also confusing "positions on issues", with "observations about external events". Guess what? I didn't magically obtain knowledge about the Casey Anthony trial without hearing about it from some external source either. But that's knowledge about an event, not formation of an opinion on a political issue. It's not surprising that you have a hard time telling those apart though. For someone for whom opinion is obtained as though it's "fact" from some source, with no process to arrive at said opinion, you wouldn't see the difference between hearing that a politician did a specific thing and whether or not drilling for oil in the gulf is a good idea.

In both cases, you turn to a source you trust and accept whatever they tell you as fact. That's how you (and most people unfortunately) decide what to believe. That's not how I do it though. You just can't wrap your brain around this though. The bizarre part is that you project this onto me, while doing exactly what you're wrongly attacking me for but still not seeing the hypocrisy of this because in your mind you can't be wrong about anything because you are "right" about the opinions you hold. It doesn't matter if you derived those opinions using the same methods you're alleging that I use, in your mind, your opinions are "true" and/or "proven", so there's no need to think about where they came from.


It's a fascinating bit of denial really.

ITT: Gbaji confirms that his opinions are always true! Wow, so are mine!

But not on a conservative blog site. Try to stay focused on the issue.



The phrase "conservative fringe" is circular the way you're using it, isn't it?

Me, and a lot of other people, arrive at the same conclusions without needing to consult with each other or parrot a source. Why? Because those conclusions are the result of rational examination of facts. WTF? You honestly can't comprehend this?



I provided pages of explanation as to why I'm right. I provided the step by step logic for any thinking person to figure it out. I invited anyone to provide an alternative explanation. No one did. And then, finally, at last resort, I provided several links to others who had come to the same conclusion I had. Absent a counter explanation, why assume they all must be wrong? And that I must be wrong?


Um... And you're still making a circular argument here. You just admitted that the links were demanded because the other posters would not accept my explanation and reasoning as sufficient, and required that I link to other people saying the same thing. But now, because I linked to other people saying the same thing, I must be wrong because I linked to other people saying the same thing. Isn't that bizarre thinking on your part?


I didn't read those sites and then decide I agreed with them. I already held my own position, and linked to those sites only to show that others believed the same. I'm not sure what warped logic you're using here. This is not remotely the same as someone linking to a blog site with half-facts and innuendo, accepting their unproven claims as absolute fact, providing not logical rational for why they're true, and still repeating them as though they were.


Which was what happened in this thread earlier. The OP linked to an incredibly biased source with gaps in their claims a mile wide, yet another poster didn't just accept the ridiculous claims, but went a step further and insisted that there must be some sort of fraud going on. Even the biased source didn't claim that, but an impressionable poster did. Think about that.


I don't do that. I form my own opinions. I always have.



And you'll repeat this every time Joph demand a cite when all I'm doing is presenting a logical argument, right? I didn't link those sites because I think it makes my argument stronger, but because other people on this forum tend to reject any argument out of hand unless one can provide a cite. Even when it's not the facts in dispute, but some logical extrapolation of the facts (like: Why does the government provide those benefits to married couples in the first place?).


I understand what you're saying. Many on this forum don't.



Except in this case there is no "primary source". That was the point I even made in that thread. There is no all-knowing authoritative completely accepted by all parties source which can answer the question I was asking ("why does government provide those benefits?"). It doesn't exist! My point for providing those links was to show that when one searches for "state interest in marriage", those are the results you'll find.

I repeatedly invited anyone in that thread to provide alternative explanations. No one did. In the absence of an alternative, what the hell are we supposed to do? In that case, I was arguing with people who refused to accept the logical reasoning I provided, even though the refused to provide any alternative explanations, and then dismissed the links showing others arriving at the same conclusions as I, again even though they could provide no alternative sources themselves.



Yes. It is basic stuff. If I provide some logic, evidence, and support for my position, no matter how much you may view it as "biased", it's still stronger than the position for which no one provides any logic, reason, nor support at all. You get that right? My whole reason for providing those links was simply to show that if you randomly googled the question being asked, these were the results you'd get. I then followed that with an invitation for anyone to find some competing explanation.


No one did. So how is that remotely similar to what the OP (and other posters in this thread) did? It's not, and you darn well know it!



That maybe they know what the hell they're talking about? This goes back to the whole "circular labeling" bit. If you label anyone who says X as part of the "conservative fringe" and the reject anything said by the "conservative fringe", you're really just giving yourself an excuse to not think about the issue itself.

What's funny is that you are doing exactly what you're claiming I do. You're judging someone's opinion based on who they are, rather than what they're actually saying. So anyone who doesn't agree with spending for stimulus is part of the "conservative fringe" and can be ignored. And anyone who opposes raising taxes to pay for all that stimulus spending which wasn't supposed to require raising taxes is also part of the "conservative fringe" and can be ignored. But aren't just just associating positions with labels?

Where did you learn those associations? I can tell you exactly how and why I opposed the stimulus spending, raising taxes, and a host of other positions I hold, without once mentioning or labeling any of the groups of people involved. I can do this just by objectively assessing the proposed actions and their likely results. But you can't, can you? For you it's: "conservatives want to keep taxes the same on the rich; conservatives are bad/stupid/whatever; therefore I oppose keeping taxes the same on the rich". That's really the limit of your political thought.


And again, the irony there is astounding. You're projecting.

No, the issue is that you are linking opinion pieces as if they have the value of primary sources or journalistic editorials. I don't care if they are from liberal or conservative sources, they aren't valid.

There's really no reason to approach the rest, because this is the core issue here you apparently don't get.

Are you saying I should change my positions, or the methods I use to arrive at them, based on the issue or topic? That doesn't make any sense at all!

Or by "same position every single time", you mean position to mean "conservative" or "liberal"? Um... Isn't that you doing exactly the sort of partisan side-picking I'm talking about? You think that positions should be based on who agrees or disagrees and their political "side".


This may be surprising to those who assume that's how it should be done, but that's not how I do it.


Go ahead and test me. Pick any political topic and I'll provide a logical and rational explanation for the position I hold. And if you really want to test yourself, try to do the same thing. I suspect many of you have so completely accepted the "political side" based mindset that you don't even realize you're doing it, and can't see when someone else isn't. But that's just an opinion based on observation on my part. :)