Quote:
Originally Posted by ottopilot
He may be a wing-nut, but...
|
You know when you start your defense of a source with “he may be a wing-nut, but…" I think that says a lot. I mean even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottopilot
I challenge you to disprove factually any of the events or associations he outlines relating to current and former GS employees now in key government positions, the timing of decisions made by their influence on direct competitors of GS, their redesignation as a "bank", the ties to federal government and both the Bush and Obama administrations.
|
To begin with I’d take issue with his opening bit alluding to how the health care bill is going to be potentially fatal for him so he’d better have that heart attack now. Yeah guys like Beck are going to be sent to death panels very soon due to their lack of ability to obtain health care. I think that’s in paragraph 3 on page 420 of the bill. So sad… so many wealthy people sent to their death with a stroke of Obama’s pen(s.)
Then he moves onto a rant that, well, is basically non coherent at times. When it does make sense he’s really just paraphrasing Matt Taibbi's RS article. When he doesn’t make sense he makes statements like “a web of bubbles” and other statements that really don’t make sense. Trying to follow his rant and accompanying caulk board diagram makes my head hurt.
So… I think you should have stopped with “he may be a wing nut.”
Using sources like Beck, Limbaugh et el is no different than people on the left sourcing Michael Moore, Randi Rhodes et el. These folks are all full of crap and wing nuts with a cause. I simply don’t see how sourcing them helps your position.