filtherton

Yes, please don't cut and run. We all know that's something only cowards and liberals do.

Bill O'Rights

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

Ustwo

Except that I was in fact fishing.

You see there are two things about my 'story' which do need to be looked at. One is the date it came out, December 24, not a big news day. Its quite possible that such a story with nothing but allegations would be ignored on xmass eve.

There is another more pressing issue, and that is the source. Its not the source I got it from, but the original source it came from.

Newsmax.com

Newsmax is a far right site that, while at a higher level of truth than the ironically named 'truthout.com', will still take the first pro-right piece or factoid that comes it without without even a simple fact check. More than once, back when I used to visit them on a regular basis, I'd see a story that would just 'disappear' when the facts didn't measure up to reality, with no explanation as to where they went. This included the doctored JFKerry photo where he is next to Hanoi Jane giving a speech (the real one is just him in the background with Hanoi Jane sitting on the grass as some such gathering, and I have to wonder if the 'fake' one was put out there to cover for the real more tame version) and another was in 2001 when there was a claim that Bush did in fact win the popular vote apparently someone added wrong and they went with his claim.

I thought it would be fun to compare peoples reaction to this and the wonderful truthout threads and other such threads which have graced theses forums as of late. I did some minor fact checking on the story, and what they claimed did seem to be true, but its not like I dug deep into a three week old story. Apparently all that matters is if you are voted for a turd sandwhich or a giant dueche when it comes to accepting content as worthy of discussion.

After all we all know the press is in fact biased to the left as scientifically proven by UCLA (hehehe) but I can't imagine them all ignoring a story if it were in fact a major story, they haven't tried that since the devil in the blue dress showed her head.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

rlbond86

Oh yes, USTWO, it's the same "liberal" media that DIDN'T TELL AMERICANS ABOUT THE SPYING PROGRAM FOR A WHOLE YEAR. OMG THE LIBERALS WILL GET US!!!!

I know you are being a little silly about this, but that UCLA study isn't the be-all, end-all study by which to judge the "liberal" media.

For every one ucla study about the media, there are 10 that confirm its neutrality.

Also, newsmax is hardly a reliable source. They have articles about how we found nukes in Iraq and how kerry flicked off a vietnam vet (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...1/225546.shtml) which was not only completely fabricated, and of course -- suprise! -- Fox News picked it up from them. They of course failed to publish any stories about how the sunnis are claiming the election is a fraud and demand a re-election.

Elphaba

Rlbond86, I encourage you to read the rules of the Politics Forum. Your post suggests that you have not done that as yet.

shakran

Bullshit, bullshit, and more bullshit. You were doing one of two things. Either you were posting yet another poorly researched, sensationalist attack on the left, and now that you got caught you're trying to change your story or, you were not fishing, you were trolling, because posting something that you KNOW is full of crap in order to launch an attack, is trolling. Which one is it?

shakran

By the way Mr. O'Rights, I was not baiting. I was simply insisting that, if someone's gonna launch an attack, he must be able to back it up. Because Ustwo was not able to back it up, his attack is now invalidated. Simple debate tactic, not baiting.

Marvelous Marv

From what I have observed, a recent tactic you have developed is to call someone who disagrees with you a liar. Without being able to back it up.

This resulted in one thread being closed, and I assume the same thing will happen to this one very soon.

It would be nice to see substantial logic and reasoning leading up to a "liar!" accusation.

What would be even nicer would be not to see that label flung around at all, especially without reason.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

shakran

I don't recall calling anyone on here a liar per se. I recall saying people are WRONG. I recall saying various politicans are liars. What exactly are you talking about? And FWIW if I ever do call someone a liar, I'll back it up.


Are you referring to the Murtha thread? Did you notice how many posts were in there AFTER my last one before it was closed? How does this suddenly get blamed on me? Plus, I was arguing with you at the end. I didn't call you a liar. I said you were trying to distract from the issue, and that it wasn't going to work. I stand by that statement. Notice how it's not working in this thread either.



I'm sure. It would also be nice to see substantial logic and reasoning leading up to your accusation in this thread.

It would also be nice, just once, for you to respond to the actual topic instead of throwing the thread off on a tangent.

Don't get me wrong. I understand and sympathise with your reasons for trying to distract us from the fact that you're not replying to the topic. I wouldn't want to be proven wrong constantly either. It must suck, but, suck though it may, the stand-up thing to do is to either respond to the topic or not bother responding at all.

Ustwo posted a topic. I responded by saying I couldn't find evidence to support his premise. I then waited several days, and gave him another chance to show me some evidence. When he then ADMITTED to trolling I called him on that as well. Then you came in and suddenly you're accusing me of, essentially, being a jackass. Well, jackass I may be, but that's not the topic at hand. Start a new thread if you want to call me a jackass. Quit polluting the other threads.


You can hurl as much mud in the water as you want, but you and your party members are not going to be able to sneak away from issues by tossing up smokescreens anymore.

ratbastid

Shame about that. The only way you can cover for posting an obvious troll is by saying, "Guess what, I was just jerking you around." I've seen people banned for behavior like that.

I find it interesting that you'd now back off the "partisan hack" position by playing up the "manipulative game-playing ass" position. That wouldn't have been my choice. But the alternative would have been to admit a mistake, which wouldn't have been very Republican of you.

I've lost some respect for you here, Ustwo. Not, I suspect, that you care.

Elphaba

Please don't close this thread, BoR. Every thread is now coming down to the same thing. Distraction without considered response to the op seems to be the current knee-jerk response from some of the conservatives that regularly post to this forum. It worked splendidly in the past, and it is working again now.

I have done my best to abide by the "back button" rule, but "no response" appears to be taken as vindication to those who hope to get a topic locked or to suspend discussion.

Bill, I am sure that if you check the recent history of this forum, you will find a distinct pattern of subtle trolling that usually ends in a warning to those that have been provoked to anger or frustration.

I have been told that my complaints should be made in private and I disagree. I am profounding concerned about the politics of our country and I only wish to convey my concern that this forum is being undermined by those who wish to end discussion in any way possible.

trickyy

oddly enough, trolling is a common method of fishing.


anyway, i do wonder about the purpose of this thread...

i agree, there has been a lot of poor discussion etiquette lately. it would be nice to get past it.

Bill O'Rights

By the way Mr. Shakron, I was not singling you out. This entire thread has chum slung all through it.


I'm not closing anything...yet. All I did was inform people to keep it civil, and that is what I expect. No less. I want civil conservatives, and I want civil liberals. That's it. And frankly, I see a lot of poo being flung from both sides, so it's not just the fault of the oposition. Interesting, when you stop and examine the parallels.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

Ustwo

I was playing with the hypocrisy of some of the posters on the left here. I find your reaction quite telling, as no one likes being caught with his hands in the cookie jar. I'm sorry if you think I was 'caught' and I am trying to get off the hook, but quite frankly I'm not that stupid. Why do you think I didn't include the second source in the first post?

It was a dose of the lefts own medicine, take something which at first glance seems possible, and then post it as a fact to discuss as if it were gospel truth. As someone who believes that the media is in fact biased towards the left (and I also think water is wet) I was inclined to believe it. Looking deeper though I did see the date (Dec 24) and realized that the concept that the entire press in the US would ignore this story since the Italians used domestic wire taps in order to prevent Bush from getting any backing to using them in the US a weeeee bit of a stretch. Its far less a stretch then some of the tin-foil hat claims which I see on the other side of the aisle here, but still I'm a realist and I am not going to believe something because I WANT to believe it.

Now that some of the left see their hypocrisy I fully expect them to be as inquisitive as to the validity of 'articles' posted which support their world view.

Hey a guy can dream

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

host

<center><center><a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1981655&postcount=14">"HAppy New Year Everyone"</a>

filtherton

So you were trolling. Too bad you didn't let ncb or marv in on your ploy. They didn't seem to question your premise much. Perhaps you also succeeded in "playing" with the hypocrisy of some of the posters on the right here.

Bill O'Rights

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.