What Makes People Vote Republican?

Post Reply New Topic

I fail to see clips of C-Span of congressional hearings being right wing propaganda.



You seem to have plenty of time to listen to Keith Olbermann.

Even the right-wing sources(which wasn't all of them btw) he used had primary sources. I don't see you putting forth a logical argument just attacking with no rebuttal. A google search isn't that time consuming.

I don't listen to Keith Olbermann. I don't watch television period.

All he does is mire the debate with his 100s of links. I don't have time to look at and refute each one of them. I already have given perfectly sound counterarguments to some of his claims, but he just changes the subject and posts more links on something unrelated.

I could do the same as him and post 100s of links and anecdotes from the likes of Michael Moore and Al Franken but I don't have the time for that and quite frankly that just isn't my style. I'd prefer to debate actual philosophical substance instead of wasting my time with tedious partison anecdotes and political smears. I'm more of a "big picture" person. I like to use my own reasoning faculty to explore ideas. I can't stand it when all people do is quote others and post links.

@ marshall

You are more of a person that can't stand the fact that your world view doesn't fit with reality. I am going to quote others and post links to back up what I am saying. You don't like it tough, the fact I can actually provide sources gives me credibility.

@bold no you haven't else I wouldn't have said anything. And if your unwilling to put in the time to understand the argument your 'opponent' is making you shouldn't be debating at all. And like I said he sought used primary sources in his arguments so your insistence that all he is doing is quoting others is incorrect at least in this instance. He has supplied an argument with valid sources, now either shut up or apply the same standards to your own argument.

You probably don't even understand my world view so stop claiming to know what I think. The roots of your particular political persuasion aren't about being "correct" in terms of reality anyways. Neither are mine. We differ on values.

You're the one who disingenuously and insultingly labels everyone who disagrees with you as "drinking the koolaid", yet you still have the gall to complain about the left being "elitist". You're worse than Orwell.

If you would learn to actually address counterarguments from the other side in a logical way rather than simply changing the subject and posting yet more smear stories and anecdotes.

People have addressed his primary sources in the past. In each case that particular point of debate simply ended and he moved on to something else.

Also, you're still missing something. Even if he uses all primary sources, his sources still leave out information. He only posts information that supports his side of things and leaves out any information that doesn't. Do you ever wonder why that is?

That's a human trait, not confined to conservatives, but I do see it expressed more from right wing types. You nailed the problem. It is his sources that are dishonest. If he is silly enough to trust biased sources and make decisions based on incomplete information, of course his decisions may not agree with those who do check both sides of an issue (of course there may be more than two sides to any issue).

I see this all the time from people arguing against the fact of evolution (as if arguing about a fact of nature will make it go away). If their only sources of information are what a Biblical literalist pastor tells them, or Jack Chick pamphlets, or lying web sites such as Answers in Genesis then basically they know nothing about the subject. All the misinformation they base their opinions on means their opinions are not as valid as somebody who has reality on their side. That is why the Creationists have lost every court case of the past forty years. It isn't a conspiracy and it's not the devil. They don't have any scientific evidence that falsifies evolution or supports their position. Even so, you still hear people such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh spreading the same old lies that were refuted long ago.

Anyone who thinks that Fox is "fair and balanced" or a reliable source for news is living in la la land. There are some web sites out there dedicated to exposing their lies. Google is your friend. Don't take my word for it. The truth is there if you can handle it.

Funny cause I usually see it from liberals whom promptly go for personal attacks when they are proven wrong.



Can you get off the evolution argument already, just cause you think they are wrong on an item because they aren't ATHEISTS, doesn't mean they are wrong on other issues.



They are sure as heck a reliable news source compared to mediamatters which is taking money from someone paying money exclusively to smear Glenn Beck and Fox News. Further I provided other sources.

Quite frankly you can't win the argument on facts so you try to smear myself, Fox News, etc. You and marshall, are using Saul Alinski style tactics straight out of Rulebook for Radicals.



Let's see, fauxnews, mediamatters, mediate, factcheck.org, huffington post, moveon.org, etc. and I can backtrack their funding all to the same guy that is paying millions of dollars exclusively to try to dig anything up he can to smear Glenn Beck.



Why should I find a site or sites that have been caught coordinating attacks on Sarah Palin, that are all being paid to exclusively go after a commentator on Fox News to even be remotely credible? Thing is Glenn Beck had sources, I posted sources (and some of them weren't even from FOX NEWS! !!

If anyone is having problems handling the truth it is you sir.

A secretive group of Wall Street hedge fund bosses are said to be behind a plot to cash in on the decline of the euro.
Representatives of George Soros's investment business were among an all-star line up of Wall Street investors at an 'ideas dinner' at a private townhouse in Manhattan, according to reports.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... -euro.html

Just as Glenn Beck Reported.

“It has become commonplace to direct attention toward George Soros whenever currency markets are in the news,” Michael Vachon, a spokesman for Soros, said in an e-mailed statement, adding that any suggestion of wrongdoing by Soros Fund Management is “without merit.” The New York-based firm will cooperate fully with any government requests, he said.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-0 ... ate2-.html

Hmm, they claim he did no wrongdoing but what a coincidence he shows up in this.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... lar/57696/

It is hard to find stuff with all the garbage stuff bashing Beck right and left, but the stuff is there and if you dig hard enough you find that Beck is telling the truth.

Last edited by Inuyasha on 07 Dec 2010, 6:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[quote="marshall"m right-wing sources with a conservative spin already attached to the facts. If he only researches the facts that right-wing sources give him, of course he's going to come to the same conclusion they do. The problem is, the right-wing spin machine omits any and all facts/anecdotes that point the other direction. Inuyasha doesn't understand that sources don't have to be outright lying to be biased. All they have to do is conveniently omit any and all facts that might support the other side.

.[/quote]

That is called (in the trade) Observer Bias. We all suffer from it from time to time. There is a tendency to favor our own causes regardless of how smart we are.

ruveyn

The issue isn't that his sources outright lie. What happens is people take certain facts and anecdotes (which may happen to be literally true) but then omit other critical information that lends less creedence to the agenda they are trying to push. For example, people on the right keep blaming the Community Reinvestment Act for the housing bubble, yet they refuse to post any sources showing how banking deregulation (wich had mostly bi-partison support) played a definite role. Rather than admit that both parties were involved they just want to smear Democrats, thinking that this will attract people to their side. This is stupid since many on the left don't support Democrats outright anyways. Intelligent people on the left realize that both parties are corrupt.

That's the biggest lie of all spread by creationists, equating evolution with atheism. Wrong, sir. But also, it isn't a question of my "thinking" they are wrong about this. I KNOW they are wrong way beyond any reasonable doubt. The point is that if someone is so far out of touch with reality on this subject and apparently unable to reason critically, why should I take their word on anything? Would you seriously consider the advice of somebody who insists the earth is flat? Seriously? That's just as crazy as what you're doing when you listen to people who deny the fact of evolution the way Beck and Limbaugh do.





Glenn Beck smears himself. All we have to do is listen to what he says. No digging required. There may be some stories where Beck IS telling the truth. It would be hard for him to have any credibility even among right wing nutjobs if everything he said all the time was demonstrably a lie. However, he has been caught in so many lies already (not just about evolution) and also has instigated or inspired some really hateful people to do or threaten to do horrible things, that Beck is pushing the fine line between free speech and falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 07 Dec 2010, 6:42 pm, edited 5 times in total.

Funny that I can confirm what Glenn Beck is using from other sources.

Mahathir, 71, who has overseen Malaysia's growth during his 16-year rule, charged that Soros aimed to stop the fast-growing region in its tracks. "All these countries have spent 40 years trying to build up their economies," Mahathir said before the conference, "and a moron like Soros comes along with a lot of money" and undermines them.
http://articles.latimes.com/1997/sep/22 ... s/fi-34969

What made this guy so angry.

Soros denied that his hedge fund, the $9.1-billion Quantum Fund, had a role in devaluing the ringgit; in his own speech, he said that ironically the buying of Malaysian currency during the crash helped buffer the impact. Mahathir, he claimed, was using him "as a scapegoat for his own mistakes."

But Soros admitted to zeroing in on the Thai baht and other currencies, sending regional stock markets spiraling downward. He dismissed Mahathir's desire to ban currency trading, calling it "a recipe for disaster." After the prime minister's speech, Malaysian finance officials hastily reassured bankers that policies would not change.

http://articles.latimes.com/1997/sep/22 ... s/fi-34969

That answers the question...

So we have a odd number of currencies failing and Soros happens to be doing something involving those currencies when each of them fail.

Reminds me of one of the villians in the James Bond: Casino Royale movie.

Really I haven't noticed? Perhaps its because his opponent is lazing about. You are still making claims without supplying sources. He didn't even start posting sources until people started claiming he should. Why shouldn't you have to use the same standard?

Cause I've pretty much torpedoed what sources they have used by backtracking where those sources are getting money from. Other sources I could tie back to journ'O'list, which shoots their credibility to pieces too. Another source I think they could use just lost a lawsuit where they had come up with a phony sex scandal which blew up in their faces.