A shameful week for America's liberal elites. The top 10 most ridiculous liberal atta

[teapartysamurai]

The problem for L.K is the source.... the Telegraph.... as I have mentioned, the Telegraph insists on accuracy from it's bloggers. They are welcome to voice political opinion, as long as they remain factually accurate. Every fact that Gardiner uses to back up his opinion is factually accurate.

The problem for many posters is that they don't understand the difference between the opinion part, and the fact part.

They argue that black is white - and they don't even know they're doing it. I continue to find that funny.

do go on, when conversing with TPS you will actually stand a chance, phony.

That's a good idea because TPS actually makes more sense than you do which makes conversation more meaningful.

They are trying to deflect away from the actual quotes in the article.

It's pretty obvious.

 

[G.T.]

110 percent is a fallacy.

Football coaches use it all the time.

100 percent is the max possible.

If you get a ten percent raise, what do you gross this year in comparison to last year, as a percentage?

In comparison, yes, but not your total.

A better question is how much Obama will raise you're taxes.

Figure out the difference in you're net income. Then get back with me.

My income taxes lowered under Obama, but anyways, 110% definitely exists and saying that it doesn't is stupid and what you just did ^ was semantics.

 

[teapartysamurai]

No, I said I'm not judging whether or not he's "competent," at all, by agreeing with his statement. Why's that hard?

Because you can't have it both ways.

Either you are agreeing with someone who's incompetent, which leaves your judgement about the statement in question, OR you think the guy's compentent enough to make such a statement.

You can't have it both ways.

WHY IS THAT HARD FOR YOU????

No, see, I'll break it down for you douche towel:

Incompetent people, can make true statements.
Competent people, can make false statements.

Judging a statement, by itself, does not address the point (at all) whether a person is competent....at all..................it's simply a judgement on the statement.

It's plain................................it's simple....................and you just.........can't.......compre.......hend

And someone like you can spin with complete BS, which is what you did above!

 

[NYcarbineer]

For the benefit of the thread: Here is an example of the journalist standard that I referred to. This, to anyone with a reasonable intellect will clearly demonstrate the difference between media that employ an ethical standard, and those that do not.

Less than an hour after the event, the NYT ran this from one of its bloggers:

1. Paul Krugman, The New York Times, January 8, 2011
We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was.

The shooting was an assassination attempt on a politician, on a political officeholder. If you were to add up all the assassinations/attempts on politicians, and assigned them a motive,

would most of them be political? If so, then Krugman is factually correct in assessing the odds. If not, then he is wrong.

 

[teapartysamurai]

What's so shameful about this?

4. Michael Tomasky, The Guardian, January 9, 2011

Republicans and even Tea Partiers will have the sense – again, for a while – to steer clear of directly gun-related rhetoric. We won’t be hearing much in the near term about “second amendment remedies” and insurrection and so forth.

But this will be temporary. Guns are simply too central to the mythology of the American right, as is the idea of liberty being wrested from tyrants only at gunpoint. For the American right to stop talking about armed insurrection would be like American liberals dropping the subjects of race and gender. It’s too encoded in conservative DNA.

… Direct responsibility for what happened Saturday? No.

Mentally ill people are mentally ill. The Beatles weren’t responsible for the messages that Charles Manson heard in their music. But there’s a difference. Paul McCartney had no earthly reason to think that an innocent song about a fairground ride (Helter Skelter) would lead a man to commit barbarous acts of murder.

Today’s Republicans and conservative commentators, however, surely understand the fire they’re playing with. But they do it, and a tragedy like Saturday’s won’t stop them, as long as they can maintain a phoney plausible deniability and as long as hate continues to pay dividends at the ballot box.

Seriously. Someone argue to me that those points are worthy of being labeled the most shameful of the week. Bring it on.

Because it's still saying liberals didn't "mean to" do violent rhetoric, conservatives did!

 

[G.T.]

Because you can't have it both ways.

Either you are agreeing with someone who's incompetent, which leaves your judgement about the statement in question, OR you think the guy's compentent enough to make such a statement.

You can't have it both ways.

WHY IS THAT HARD FOR YOU????

No, see, I'll break it down for you douche towel:

Incompetent people, can make true statements.
Competent people, can make false statements.

Judging a statement, by itself, does not address the point (at all) whether a person is competent....at all..................it's simply a judgement on the statement.

It's plain................................it's simple....................and you just.........can't.......compre.......hend

And someone like you can spin with complete BS, which is what you did above!

 

[Ernie S.]

Any idiot can tell that the Tucson shootings were caused by global warming. Geez you people are so stupid!
There are numerous computer models that prove this beyond a doubt.


Sorry but my dog ate the raw data.

 

[georgephillip]

What happened to mental healthcare under Reagan

Do you feel Ronnie kicked you to the curb?

Have you ever been homeless?

"When Ronald Reagan was governor of California he systematically began closing down mental hospitals, later as president he would cut aid for federally-funded community mental health programs.

"It is not a coincidence that the homeless populations in the state of California grew in the seventies and eighties.

"The people were put out on the street when mental hospitals started to close all over the state.

Ronald Reagan

 

[California Girl]

For the benefit of the thread: Here is an example of the journalist standard that I referred to. This, to anyone with a reasonable intellect will clearly demonstrate the difference between media that employ an ethical standard, and those that do not.

Less than an hour after the event, the NYT ran this from one of its bloggers:

1. Paul Krugman, The New York Times, January 8, 2011
We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was. She’s been the target of violence before. And for those wondering why a Blue Dog Democrat, the kind Republicans might be able to work with, might be a target, the answer is that she’s a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona, precisely because the Republicans nominated a Tea Party activist.
You know that Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we’re going to see in the months and years ahead. But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate.

For an example of the standards required for the Telegraph, see the link in the OP.

Now, if you cannot see the difference, then I can't help you.... you are beyond stupid.

The blog from the Telegraph accurately backs up the opinion of the writer, with factually accurate evidence from the liberal media.

The blog from the NYT makes a baseless claim.

Can anyone not see this?

Blogs are opinions, not news. You need to add that knowledge to your act; it might help with your pathological lie that you're a professional writer. No writer with half a brain would not know that difference.

The Telegraph blog is not 'factually accurate'. It merely cites examples that the writer THINKS makes his case. I already posted one that doesn't make his case.

Blogs from news organizations should be held to some journalistic standard. That is my opinion. That is the view of the Telegraph. Their bloggers must agree to be bound by a standard of ethics. Hence, you have decent blogs. The NYT chooses not to implement a standard. That is within their rights, however, I think the difference in quality is apparent. The blog from the Telegraph makes a claim and provides factually accurate information to back that up. The blog from the NYT was hyperbolic bullshit.

And, your desperate need to make personal comments about me.... that you cannot prove.... just adds weight to my argument. You wouldn't know fact from fiction if your life depended on it. All you achieve is to make yourself look childish and very stupid.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Allowing your bloggers to inject opinion is the lack of standard everyone's telling you about. That it's opinion based in fact or not doesn't change that, it's injecting an opinion at all.

Helloooooooooooooooooooo!

Asside from you guys trying like crazy to deflect away from the actual substance of the article, what about THE OPINIONS OF THE LEFTIES IN THE ARTICLE?

They are supposedly in "respectable" papers like the NY Times and it didn't stop them from making opinions. I notice you sure don't want to talk about that!

Well, I already posted what I thought about them, maybe you should go fucking look. In this thread. Over an hour ago.

I know!

You agree with the Pima County incompenet!

Like I forgot!

 

[mudwhistle]

If you get a ten percent raise, what do you gross this year in comparison to last year, as a percentage?

In comparison, yes, but not your total.

A better question is how much Obama will raise you're taxes.

Figure out the difference in you're net income. Then get back with me.

My income taxes lowered under Obama, but anyways, 110% definitely exists and saying that it doesn't is stupid and what you just did ^ was semantics.

All he gave you was a temp referral. He's gonna take it back at the end of the year.

Overall our taxes went up under Obama. He raised 8 different taxes on cigarettes, booze, etc.

It exists only when you compare it to something else. But you cannot give 110 percent. It's impossible.

 

[G.T.]

Helloooooooooooooooooooo!

Asside from you guys trying like crazy to deflect away from the actual substance of the article, what about THE OPINIONS OF THE LEFTIES IN THE ARTICLE?

They are supposedly in "respectable" papers like the NY Times and it didn't stop them from making opinions. I notice you sure don't want to talk about that!

Well, I already posted what I thought about them, maybe you should go fucking look. In this thread. Over an hour ago.

I know!

You agree with the Pima County incompenet!

Like I forgot!

You're still stupid, I mean there's no two ways about it.

It is your logic to say: "because you agree with a man's statement, you agree with his entire competency"But in real-life logic, you're the retard. Sorry.

 

[Toro]

Well, blaming Reaganomics is ridiculously stupid.

 

[G.T.]

In comparison, yes, but not your total.

A better question is how much Obama will raise you're taxes.

Figure out the difference in you're net income. Then get back with me.

My income taxes lowered under Obama, but anyways, 110% definitely exists and saying that it doesn't is stupid and what you just did ^ was semantics.

It exists only when you compare it to something else. But you cannot give 110 percent. It's impossible.

Glad we got that out of the way.

And yes, I know that "giving" 100% is not possible, it's a common expression and only one that a schmuck would point to in this wort of way. "not true not true neener" = geeky

 

[teapartysamurai]

If you get a ten percent raise, what do you gross this year in comparison to last year, as a percentage?

In comparison, yes, but not your total.

A better question is how much Obama will raise you're taxes.

Figure out the difference in you're net income. Then get back with me.

My income taxes lowered under Obama, but anyways, 110% definitely exists and saying that it doesn't is stupid and what you just did ^ was semantics.

How, you lost your job?

 

[G.T.]

In comparison, yes, but not your total.

A better question is how much Obama will raise you're taxes.

Figure out the difference in you're net income. Then get back with me.

My income taxes lowered under Obama, but anyways, 110% definitely exists and saying that it doesn't is stupid and what you just did ^ was semantics.

How, you lost your job?

 

[teapartysamurai]

For the benefit of the thread: Here is an example of the journalist standard that I referred to. This, to anyone with a reasonable intellect will clearly demonstrate the difference between media that employ an ethical standard, and those that do not.

Less than an hour after the event, the NYT ran this from one of its bloggers:

1. Paul Krugman, The New York Times, January 8, 2011
We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was.

The shooting was an assassination attempt on a politician, on a political officeholder. If you were to add up all the assassinations/attempts on politicians, and assigned them a motive,

would most of them be political? If so, then Krugman is factually correct in assessing the odds. If not, then he is wrong.

Only problem is Loughner turns out to be a Pothead who didn't listen to talk radio.

Didn't stop Krugman from adding this.

You know that Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we’re going to see in the months and years ahead. But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate.

What is wrong in what Krugman said? Everything, and that becomes more obvious, the more we know about Loughner.

 

[teapartysamurai]

No, see, I'll break it down for you douche towel:

Incompetent people, can make true statements.
Competent people, can make false statements.

Judging a statement, by itself, does not address the point (at all) whether a person is competent....at all..................it's simply a judgement on the statement.

It's plain................................it's simple....................and you just.........can't.......compre.......hend

And someone like you can spin with complete BS, which is what you did above!

That's all you have left?

 

[G.T.]

And someone like you can spin with complete BS, which is what you did above!

That's all you have left?

That's all I was conversing with in the 1st place.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Well, I already posted what I thought about them, maybe you should go fucking look. In this thread. Over an hour ago.

I know!

You agree with the Pima County incompenet!

Like I forgot!

You're still stupid, I mean there's no two ways about it.

It is your logic to say: "because you agree with a man's statement, you agree with his entire competency"But in real-life logic, you're the retard. Sorry.

There was nothing logical in anything you said.

You couldn't have it both ways, so you just blinked and started making personal attacks.

Pretty obvious.