Is Wikipedia politically biased? You tell me

[BULLDOG]

Oh, unlike yourself?

"You're just a poster on a discussion board," has to be the dumbest argument ever made by a poster on a discussion board.

I'm not whining about and trying to repeal a SC ruling that is more than 200 years old.

 

[BlackSand]

Oh, unlike yourself?

"You're just a poster on a discussion board," has to be the dumbest argument ever made by a poster on a discussion board.

.

Bulldog does not have the desire to address the issue you have with the constitutionality of the acts by States that you are expressing.
He is also correct in the idea that the only way you could achieve reconciliation of your situation would be to take it to court.

Now ... That would have a better chance of surviving a court battle if you actually did a little court shopping in the process.
The Courts ... Including the Supreme Court ... Offer Opinions ... And that's what they are ... An Opinion.
They also can contribute ... Actions, declarations, penalties or whatever within their jurisdiction and with respect to jurisprudence.

Bulldog is arguing from a position of Precedence ... Stare Decisis ... And general court operations.
He has acknowledged that there is no such thing as "super-stare decisis" or "super-precedence" ... They tried that with Dobbs v Jackson ... and failed.

It's simple to see ... Some people may not want to argue something they cannot legitimately support ...
So ... They simply refer to an existing decision ... Expressed in an Opinion ... And give the Court their vote in the matter.

I any case ... You both made your points ... And nothing will be done about it until someone takes it to court.
Discussing it on a platform like USMB is not a bad idea ... But you would probably need to find someone who wants to discuss it.

.​

 

[Seymour Flops]

I'm not whining about and trying to repeal a SC ruling that is more than 200 years old.

No, you are falsely claiming things are in the constitution when they are not.

There is not even a court ruling that says that the executive and the judicial branch can override the legislature in determining election rules. Refusing to take a case is not ruling one way or another.

Your premise that it is settled consitutional law that courts and executives can change election procedures is completely falls.

I disagree with M v M, yes. I know it is not likely to ever change, yes. Never said otherwise.

That doesn't change your false statement into a true one.

 

[Seymour Flops]

.

Bulldog does not have the desire to address the issue you have with the constitutionality of the acts by States that you are expressing.
He is also correct in the idea that the only way you could achieve reconciliation of your situation would be to take it to court.

Now ... That would have a better chance of surviving a court battle if you actually did a little court shopping in the process.
The Courts ... Including the Supreme Court ... Offer Opinions ... And that's what they are ... An Opinion.
They also can contribute ... Actions, declarations, penalties or whatever within their jurisdiction and with respect to jurisprudence.

Bulldog is arguing from a position of Precedence ... Stare Decisis ... And general court operations.
He has acknowledged that there is no such thing as "super-stare decisis" or "super-precedence" ... They tried that with Dobbs v Jackson ... and failed.

It's simple to see ... Some people may not want to argue something they cannot legitimately support ...
So ... They simply refer to an existing decision ... Expressed in an Opinion ... And give the Court their vote in the matter.

I any case ... You both made your points ... And nothing will be done about it until someone takes it to court.
Discussing it on a platform like USMB is not as bad idea ... But you would probably need to find someone who wants to discuss it.

.​

I think you overestimate bulldog. To me he seems like a typical Democrat who is too frightened to admit to the slightest mistatement.

His refusal to comment on Roe and Dobbs after insisting that it is the courts who tell us what is in the constitution because we can't just read it for ourselves is a perfect example of that.

 

[BlackSand]

I think you overestimate bulldog.

.

I'm sorry ... You made the mistake of thinking I care about Bulldog at all.
I was simply watching the two of you ... And tried to identify a possible point at which someone may be able to contribute something worth discussing.

I mean we are already so far off the Topic ... I thought I would use what y'all were discussing ...
To further indicate my earlier points ... That bias doesn't necessarily have to do with the absence of fact.

It often has more to do with what someone chooses to do with the facts ...
And which facts they may be willing to ignore just to argue some more.

.​

 

[Seymour Flops]

.

I'm sorry ... You made the mistake of thinking I care about Bulldog at all.
I was simply watching the two of you ... And tried to identify a possible point at which someone may be able to contribute something worth discussing.

I mean we are already so far off the Topic ... I thought I would use what y'all were discussing ...
To further indicate my earlier points ... That bias doesn't necessarily have to do with the absence of fact.

It often has more to do with what someone chooses to do with the facts ...
And which facts they may be willing to ignore just to argue some more.

.​

I'm all for getting back on topic.

Yes, wiki is biased. It used to be edited by users, but now it is clearly being "fact-checked" which now means ensuring compliance with Democratic Party dogma.

 

[BlackSand]

but now it is clearly being "fact-checked" which now means ensuring compliance with Democratic Party dogma.

.

There's a common problem some people may not realize ... You can find a study or position regarding Fact Checkers ...
That will pretty much tell you that the Fact Checkers are just as biased as anyone else.

Facts are facts ... They can be true in all cases ... But how facts are presented and discussed is a whole different story.
It's not exclusive to the Democrats either ... Although the Democrats may be more successful or prolific at it.

It is a sign of how while we have grown as a Nation and a Society ... We have strayed away from Principles that promote Restraint and Respect for all.
The media, Wiki and 90% of what is online nowadays ... Is just "selling papers" ... Forming opinions and trying to enforce policies.

They live and breathe off of getting the People to fight with each other ...
Chasing whatever ball the Assclowns on Capitol Hill throw down the street ... Like a pack of dogs.
Don't fool yourself ... Few people are immune to it ... And you have to step away from the feed bag to truly see it.

The Establishment wants you to keep fight with each other ... It's how they gain their Power.
They want you to be helpless ... That why you will surrender your Power to them.
Seize it back ... Do a better job controlling the world within your reach.

.​

 

[BULLDOG]

.

Bulldog does not have the desire to address the issue you have with the constitutionality of the acts by States that you are expressing.
He is also correct in the idea that the only way you could achieve reconciliation of your situation would be to take it to court.

Now ... That would have a better chance of surviving a court battle if you actually did a little court shopping in the process.
The Courts ... Including the Supreme Court ... Offer Opinions ... And that's what they are ... An Opinion.
They also can contribute ... Actions, declarations, penalties or whatever within their jurisdiction and with respect to jurisprudence.

Bulldog is arguing from a position of Precedence ... Stare Decisis ... And general court operations.
He has acknowledged that there is no such thing as "super-stare decisis" or "super-precedence" ... They tried that with Dobbs v Jackson ... and failed.

It's simple to see ... Some people may not want to argue something they cannot legitimately support ...
So ... They simply refer to an existing decision ... Expressed in an Opinion ... And give the Court their vote in the matter.

I any case ... You both made your points ... And nothing will be done about it until someone takes it to court.
Discussing it on a platform like USMB is not a bad idea ... But you would probably need to find someone who wants to discuss it.

.​

You are partially right. I have no desire to discuss such a silly idea with him, any more than I care to discuss whether the earth is flat. Some rabbit holes just aren't that interesting. Everything that can be said about them has been said about them.

 

[Faun]

Here is what it says about McCarthy (biog)

After Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election, McCarthy supported Trump's false denial of Biden's victory and participated in efforts to overturn the results,[7][8] and while he condemned the January 6 United States Capitol attack in its immediate aftermath, blaming Trump for the riot and saying the 2020 election was legitimate,[9][10] he would later walk back these comments and reconcile with Trump.

Kevin McCarthy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bias? What bias?

Here come the liberals saying I'm crazy (like all conservatives)

Well anybody can contribute to Wikipedia. That aside, what part of what you posted is inaccurate?

 

[Faun]

you know.. I just figure these days... if you have to explain such things to someone, that someone is either a totally dishonest person, hasn't been following news (real news) or both...

when u feel u have to make a 10 page explanation, you probably don't have to make a 10 page explanation bc the person is just not going to get it anyway..........

Thanks for admitting none of it is wrong.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You are partially right. I have no desire to discuss such a silly idea with him, any more than I care to discuss whether the earth is flat. Some rabbit holes just aren't that interesting. Everything that can be said about them has been said about them.

Then, this would be a good time to just let it go. Actually several posts ago would have been the best time.

 

[BULLDOG]

Then, this would be a good time to just let it go. Actually several posts ago would have been the best time.

So you want me to ignore your silly posts directed to me? I can't ignore you. You're funny.

 

[Seymour Flops]

So you want me to ignore your silly posts directed to me? I can't ignore you. You're funny.

Jesus Bulldog! I knew you couldn't resist replying. I didn't know you would have replied that quickly.

 

[Faun]

2 bad u don't know the difference btwn Can't and Won't. Enough said

So you start a thread but won't debate it??

 

[BULLDOG]

Jesus Bulldog! I knew you couldn't resist replying. I didn't know you would have replied that quickly.

Just turned my computer back on.

 

[BlackSand]

You are partially right. I have no desire to discuss such a silly idea with him, any more than I care to discuss whether the earth is flat. Some rabbit holes just aren't that interesting. Everything that can be said about them has been said about them.

.

I wasn't asking you a question ... Simply identifying what you were doing.
You can tell yourself whatever you need to ... But I am equally uninterested in the nothing you have to say.

You opinion is noted for whatever it may be worth ... To you anyway ...

.​

 

[Faun]

I'll answer that, since notmyfault doesn't want to. My guess is that NMF believes that the untrue part is so obvious that you must be clowning him to ask that question. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you really don't know. But, I'm probably being clowned, so NMF is not wrong.

After Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election, McCarthy supported Trump's false denial of Biden's victory and participated in efforts to overturn the results,[7][8] and while he condemned the January 6 United States Capitol attack in its immediate aftermath, blaming Trump for the riot and saying the 2020 election was legitimate,[9][10] he would later walk back these comments and reconcile with Trump.

That part in red and similar statements have been repeated in the media so often that you likely assume that it is a correct factual characterization. It isn't. That the 2020 election was stolen, illegitimate, that Trump really won, etc. is opinion. Opinion =/= lie, no matter how much you may be of a different opinion.

The same with Stacy Abrams' denial of the legitimacy of her own election loss.

We know that there were irregularities in the 2020 election. They are well documented. People whose opinion that the election was stolen or illegitimate are the ones who are more interested in those irregularities. They have read about the irregularities, seen videos of the irregularities, and likely followed the irregularities fully admitted to in the recent Arizona election.

Those who are of the opinion that it is only sore losers who are complaining about the election are less likely to delve into what happened. Likely they believe that there were no irregularities in 2020, or that any irregularities were no different than the kinds of irregularities that happen in any election year.

Each side has an opinion. It is not objective at all to say that one side is "lying." It would be just as biased if a journalism outlet said that "Biden lied again by denying irregularities in his election."

Utter bullshit.

More than 2 years since the election and no widespread election fraud has been proven.

 

[BULLDOG]

.

I wasn't asking you a question ... Simply identifying what you were doing.
You can tell yourself whatever you need to ... But I am equally uninterested in the nothing you have to say.

You opinion is noted for whatever it may be worth ... To you anyway ...

.​

Yet you still find my remarks interesting enough to require your opinion. You're welcome.

 

[Faun]

Are you a Libra?

OK... Sorry... I actually dislike Astrology (no need to answer my admittedly dumb-ass question here) but... sigh.. What can I say? Things are bonkers these days so sometimes we are all bonkers..

Anyhow, you were right -on about several things, esp that part about me thinking (virtually knowing) that the untrue part is so obvious, poster must be clowning to ask the Q.

I keep telling people to read Mollie Hemingway's book RIGGED that goes into MASSIVE detail about the election steal but few seem to be taking me up on that..

figures

And you wonder why I say they are clowning us by asking these (seemingly) ridiculous questions?

Anyhow, your old cat avatar was much more interesting than the new one... but the new does get a point across... (not that most of us need said point..)

I read much of it. All it is are complaints about mail-in ballots. No actual evidence of election fraud.

 

[Faun]

I won't be anymore

You should use conservapedia instead. I'm sure you'll like their bias.