Rangel: An Attack on Bush is an attack on all Americans (Merged)

[dilloduck]

More on Harkins, this is one of the leaders, if the DNC pulls off the win in Nov:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015356.php

Whta a dumbass--he calls him Caesar Chavez but at least he "understands" him and feels his pain. Love them liberals !!

 

[Stephanie]

madokie (1000+ posts) Sat Sep-23-06 07:22 PM
Original message
Maybe we should gather names and send an email to Hugo Chavez
thanking him for saying what needs to be said and for having the balls to break the ice so other leaders of the world will maybe speak up concerning the blivet and his ilk.

Replies to this thread
You want to be on the serryjw Sep-23-06 07:25 PM #1
the only way you can get me out of Oklahoma is if one of our kids goes to madokie Sep-23-06 07:40 PM #8
Regardless, not wise serryjw Sep-23-06 07:49 PM #10
I'm sure of that, monitoring that is madokie Sep-23-06 07:53 PM #11
Count me in. I loved the "I can still smell the sulfur " remark panader0 Sep-23-06 07:25 PM #2
He's not responsible for the overthrow of several govts 4MoronicYears Sep-23-06 07:26 PM #3
and he actually has done something for our fellow Americans madokie Sep-23-06 07:37 PM #6
I would join that flyingfysh Sep-23-06 07:28 PM #4
I'm in. sfexpat2000 Sep-23-06 07:31 PM #5
Me too n/t zeemike Sep-23-06 07:38 PM #7
I'm in sweetheart Sep-23-06 07:49 PM #9
Its good to hear him speak up madokie Sep-23-06 07:58 PM #13
I'm in. personman Sep-23-06 07:58 PM #12
I'm in...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2207250

 

[nt250]

madokie (1000+ posts) Sat Sep-23-06 07:22 PM
Original message
Maybe we should gather names and send an email to Hugo Chavez
thanking him for saying what needs to be said and for having the balls to break the ice so other leaders of the world will maybe speak up concerning the blivet and his ilk.

Replies to this thread
You want to be on the serryjw Sep-23-06 07:25 PM #1
the only way you can get me out of Oklahoma is if one of our kids goes to madokie Sep-23-06 07:40 PM #8
Regardless, not wise serryjw Sep-23-06 07:49 PM #10
I'm sure of that, monitoring that is madokie Sep-23-06 07:53 PM #11
Count me in. I loved the "I can still smell the sulfur " remark panader0 Sep-23-06 07:25 PM #2
He's not responsible for the overthrow of several govts 4MoronicYears Sep-23-06 07:26 PM #3
and he actually has done something for our fellow Americans madokie Sep-23-06 07:37 PM #6
I would join that flyingfysh Sep-23-06 07:28 PM #4
I'm in. sfexpat2000 Sep-23-06 07:31 PM #5
Me too n/t zeemike Sep-23-06 07:38 PM #7
I'm in sweetheart Sep-23-06 07:49 PM #9
Its good to hear him speak up madokie Sep-23-06 07:58 PM #13
I'm in. personman Sep-23-06 07:58 PM #12
I'm in...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2207250

I hate Islam but the average liberal fucking scares me a lot more than the average Muslim does.

 

[dilloduck]

I hate Islam but the average liberal fucking scares me a lot more than the average Muslim does.

That's no lie---they are the ones who will drag our ass down first !

 

[jillian]

I don't know Jillian. I'm kind of shocked that you're a lawyer and you are still arguing about things you should know better than I do, but obviously don't.

Let me explain something to YOU that you clearly don't understand and which I clearly do....

1. Congress is the legislative branch, not judicial. The ONLY jurisdiction they have to make any findings relative to a criminal inquiry is severely limited.

OK.. so now that maybe we have a little bit of that misplaced arrogance in check, let's move on...

Maybe you misread some of what I said. I'm not sure why you included this sentence: "A finding of "not guilty", however, does not mean innocence, it means you weren't found guilty." You seem to be trying to contradict something I said, when I actually said the same thing.

No, I did not misread. Language, particularly in law, is very specific. You were correct in part, but failed to see it through or get its implications. That's ok, it's a difficult concept.

Except I put the word "innocent" in quotes and you put the words "not guilty" in quotes.

Because there is no such thing as a finding of "innocence" in criminal law. There is ONLY a finding of guilty or not guilty and "not guilty" does not mean the same thing as innocence... that's one of the problems when someone is prosecuted unjustly... they never truly get exonerated because of that distinction.

So that's why I corrected you.

A verdict in a criminal trial does not prove anything except whether the state proved it's case to the satisfaction of the jury or judge.

Not true.... if the state proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt, that is absolutely a finding that the facts occurred as alleged because the burden is so high.

As far are the Senate not being an "open court" because it doesn't have a jury? Ever heard of Oliver North? Elliot Abrams? If subpoena power, testifying under oath (which John Kerry apparently did not do since he was apparently never sworn), and the granting of immunity isn't enough of a definition of a court for you, than I give up.

Again, the Senate is a legislative, not judicial body. It has very limited ability to do anything relative to findings of criminality. It is NOT a Court, though some of its responsibilities may be in the nature of fact-finding or use the ability to issue a subpoena, in a quasi-judicial capacity.

Senate ever jail Ollie North for his crimes? Nope... didn't think so. BTW, YES, in part because there's no jury it's not a criminal court.... since a criminal defendant is entitled to a jury....

But mostly it's because it is L E G I S L A T I V E....

I made two points: Wikipedia is not a reliable source and facts are not disputable. Opinions about facts is not the same thing as denying they are facts.

Wikipedia is about an 80 to 90 percent reliable source... I figure that's about double the reliability of anything from this admin or Congress... and it has safeguards...

As for "facts".... I'd disagree with you there, too... I was always told that there are 3 sides to every story, yours, mine and what really happened (which probably lies somewhere in between).

Or are you now the arbiter of truth, as well?

Pretty neat trick.... lol....

 

[jillian]

That's no lie---they are the ones who will drag our ass down first !

Ah... all you purported lovers of truth, democracy and the American way.. .
RAFLMAO!!!

The hatred and vitriole of the right is a truly brilliant thing to observe.

 

[dilloduck]

Ah... all you purported lovers of truth, democracy and the American way.. .
RAFLMAO!!!

The hatred and vitriole of the right is a truly brilliant thing to observe.

We are brilliant---you might try to deal with some substance if you're ever up for it.

 

[jillian]

We are brilliant---you might try to deal with some substance if you're ever up for it.

Why, have you said anything that can't be reduced to "I hate everyone who disagrees with me"?

Didn't think so...

 

[dilloduck]

Why, have you said anything that can't be reduced to "I hate everyone who disagrees with me"?

Didn't think so...

read my posts--now you are just plain acting stupid.

 

[nt250]

Let me explain something to YOU that you clearly don't understand and which I clearly do....

1. Congress is the legislative branch, not judicial. The ONLY jurisdiction they have to make any findings relative to a criminal inquiry is severly limited. They can make no findings as to "treason", which can only be determined in a judicial... read that again... JUDICIAL proceeding.

OK.. so now that maybe we have a little bit of that misplaced arrogance in check, let's move on...

The only arrogance being shown in this argument is by you. If there are more educated, or more competent lawyers here, I invite them to speak up, because you're giving lawyers a bad name. Not only can't you argue a point without insulting me, I know what you are saying isn't true and I'm not a lawyer.

I know the difference between the legislative and judicial branches, which if you go back and read my posts again, I made pretty clear. I never said that the Senate would be the "court" to charge, try, or convict, John Kerry of treason. What I said was the a Senate committee hearing, like the one John Kerry appeared before on April 22, 1971, fits the description of an open court that is described in the Constitution as being grounds for the charge of treason.

By your standards, if I appear in traffic court and blurt out that I've killed my husband, the state can't do anything about it. That's ridiculous and you should know that. You're only arguing with me because you can't stand the thought of John Kerry being accused of committing treason, which he obviously did do. If he was at a cocktail party and said the same thing, the result would be the same. He would be admitting to treason. The only difference there, however, is that in that scenario the two witness rule would apply.

Actually, the two witness rule applies to John Kerry's Senate admission, too.

No, I did not misread. Language, particularly in law, is very specific. You were correct in part, but failed to see it through or get it's implications. That's ok, it's a difficult concept.

I guess it is since you graduated from law school, passed the bar, and you don't seem to understand it. You obviously don't understand. I have made it more that clear to anyone who can read the English language that I understand the difference between being found guilty in a court of law and being guilty. I also purposely put the word innocent in quotes because I know it's not a legal term. You, however, (who claims to be lawyer) put the words not guilty in quotes, and not guilty IS a legal term.

Because there is no such thing as a finding of "innocence" in criminal law. There is ONLY a finding of guilty or not guilty and "not guilty" does not mean the same thing as innocence... that's one of the problems when someone is prosecuted unjustly... they never truly get exonerated because of that distinction.

So that's why I corrected you.

You didn't correct me. That's exactly what I said to begin with.

Not true.... if the state proves it's case beyond a reasonable doubt, that is absolutely a finding that the facts occurred as alleged because the burden is so high.

Google the name Scott Hornoff. Are you sure you're a lawyer?

Again, the Senate is a legislative, not judicial body. It has very limited ability to do anything relatve to findings of criminality. It is NOT a Court, though some of its responsibilities may be in the nature of fact-finding or use the ability to issue a subpoena.

Senate ever jail Ollie North for his crimes? Nope... didn't think so. BTW, YES, in part because there's no jury it's not a criminal court.... since a criminal defendant is entitled to a jury....

But mostly it's because it is L E G I S L A T I V E....

Why didn't Oliver North go to jail, Jillian?

Wikipedia is about an 80 to 90 percent reliable source... I figure that's about double the reliability of anything from this admin or Congress... and it has safeguards...

You compare an encyclopedia to politiicans? Are you capable of ever NOT thinking about bashing Republicans in any context ever? Or do you dream about how evil they all are? Saying that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and should not be used to argue a point, is something any reasonable person would agree with. What? Is Wikipedia funded by liberals? That would explain you can't even admit I'm right about that much.

As for "facts".... I'd disagree with you there, too... I was always told that there are 3 sides to every story, yours, mine and what really happened (which probably lies somewhere in between).

Or are you now the arbiter of truth, as well?

Pretty neat trick.... lol....

It's not a neat trick at all. It happens when you don't let your petty politics cloud your judgement. You should try it some time.

 

[Dr Grump]

Granted, I'm sure I'm guilty of the same from time to time.

Let's just say there's some history here... and I won't get into it. Let me just say that I've found responding to certain people's idea of "debate" as.... tiresome and futile... I think I have better things to do with my time... like cleaning the china.

History? What history? We have hardly posted to each other. When somebody makes a statement and another questions it, it is called a debate. You made a statement, I asked you to back it up. You then asked me to, which I did, and you failed to respond. You dodged and weaved. Now be a man and own up that your posts on Chavez were opinion and not fact. Or if you can prove they are a fact, do so. I also find it tiresome and futile that people post shit and fail to back it up with any form of substansive argument, then cry foul. Just to clarify, I'll give you an example of what you just did. Say, I come on board and say "George Bush is a liar, swindler and cheater". You then say to me "prove it". I turn around and say, "no, you prove me wrong". That is what you did re Chavez. Now either back it up, or shut up. And if you back it up, we'll take if from there, but whatever do Karl, don't whine. The only thing worse than a whiney liberal is a whiney conservative....

 

[musicman]

Wikipedia is about an 80 to 90 percent reliable source...

Interesting. Perhaps you can help me to put that statement in some context. What reading does the "jillian-meter" give to factcheck.org?

 

[KarlMarx]

History? What history? We have hardly posted to each other. When somebody makes a statement and another questions it, it is called a debate. You made a statement, I asked you to back it up. You then asked me to, which I did, and you failed to respond. You dodged and weaved. Now be a man and own up that your posts on Chavez were opinion and not fact. Or if you can prove they are a fact, do so. I also find it tiresome and futile that people post shit and fail to back it up with any form of substansive argument, then cry foul. Just to clarify, I'll give you an example of what you just did. Say, I come on board and say "George Bush is a liar, swindler and cheater". You then say to me "prove it". I turn around and say, "no, you prove me wrong". That is what you did re Chavez. Now either back it up, or shut up. And if you back it up, we'll take if from there, but whatever do Karl, don't whine. The only thing worse than a whiney liberal is a whiney conservative....

Grump, we have debated some time ago. I found that, no matter how many sources I you asked for, and no matter how many sources I provided, you seemed to have an objection to them. "Too right wing", "not a reliable source", etc. When I challenged you to do the same, you declined, using the excuse that I made a statement, and I had to defend it to your satisfaction.

I finally got the impression that you were doing this to simply jerk me around, you weren't really interested in a debate. Furthermore, it was pretty obvious to me that you frame insults inside the pretense of a debate. And this thread proved me right.

I've debated others, liberal and conservative. I think I've been pretty good about supplying sources and so forth. But I believe the other side, would either provide something in return. In your case, instead of providing a counter claim, you just would refuse to consider my sources and challenge me to supply yet even more. In fact, it was YOU who weren't supplying sources, and I got the impression that you were a) too lazy to try, b) not interested in a debate, but more interested in manipulating people, c) lacked the skills to defend your position and knew it.

That's why I don't even start with you. That explains my reaction to you earlier. In fact, I get the impression that you're here to insult people and belittle them using the pretense of debating with them.

That's why I reacted the way I did and that's why I refuse to debate you. I find it a waste of time and futile. Not because I don't think I can defend my positions, I can. I can spend a lot of time looking up sources, only to have you refuse to consider them, challenge me to supply more, and in the end, I've supplied 99% of the links, you've provided 1%, if I was lucky. In addition, I'd have to play to your rules, I made the first assertion, then endlessly insist that you would not provide a source counter to mine unitl I provided a source that met your criteria, which you seemed to change with every round we'd got through. That's not a debate, that's you pulling the strings and me dancing to your tune.

Now, I've provided a polite response to you, you now have your answer.

 

[Dr Grump]

Grump, we have debated some time ago. I found that, no matter how many sources I you asked for, and no matter how many sources I provided, you seemed to have an objection to them. "Too right wing", "not a reliable source", etc. When I challenged you to do the same, you declined, using the excuse that I made a statement, and I had to defend it to your satisfaction.

I do not remember the exchange. Could have happened, but I am not going to apologise if I don't trust sources. I find most conservatives provide blogs or well-known right-wing sites as sources. And most of those sites offer up opinion articles.

I finally got the impression that you were doing this to simply jerk me around, you weren't really interested in a debate. Furthermore, it was pretty obvious to me that you frame insults inside the pretense of a debate. And this thread proved me right.

Of course I'm interested in debate. That is the only reason I'm here. What insults? The original exchange between you and I had no insults. I merely asked you to back up YOUR INITIAL assertion. Remember, you made that assertion not I.

In your case, instead of providing a counter claim, you just would refuse to consider my sources and challenge me to supply yet even more. In fact, it was YOU who weren't supplying sources, and I got the impression that you were a) too lazy to try, b) not interested in a debate, but more interested in manipulating people, c) lacked the skills to defend your position and knew it.

I did provide a counter claim. You ignored it. Nobody on this board has proved that wikipedia is a bad source. They haven't proved it. In fact, I know of a person on another board who provided a link (which I couldn't find) that compared wikipedia to Encyclopedia Britanicca and found they were both of equal value. And since when does the person who is QUESTIONING the other's words (in this case, me trying to get you to prove what you said) have to supply sources. I DIDN"T make the statements - YOU did -therefore they are yours to prove. If you can't, just say so. Addressing a) I provided a link, you didn't. WHo is lazy? b) absolutely interested, which is why I asked you to back up your assertion. You have failed to do so c) I defended my position. You have yet to do likewise.

That's why I don't even start with you. That explains my reaction to you earlier. In fact, I get the impression that you're here to insult people and belittle them using the pretense of debating with them.

Well your impression is dead wrong. What do you mean you didn't even start with me? I asked a civil question, you tried to throw the ball in my court. That leads me to believe you can't back up your claim. Futility indeed. How is asking somebody to back up their POV belittling them?? You can either back it up or not.

That's why I reacted the way I did and that's why I refuse to debate you. I find it a waste of time and futile. Not because I don't think I can defend my positions, I can. I can spend a lot of time looking up sources, only to have you refuse to consider them. That's not a debate, that's you pulling the strings and me dancing to your tune.

Personally? I don't think you can defend your position. I think you had a preconceived idea who Chavez was, and when I provided the link, you realised your argument didn't stack up. It was then that I started on you. I don't have a lot of time to debate, so when somebody starts giving me the run around like you did, it pisses me off. I don't want you dancing to anybody's tune at all, I want you to back up your POV with facts.

Now, I've provided a polite response to you, you now have your answer.

Thank you. Although I think your answer doesn't stack up in any measurable way.

 

[KarlMarx]

I do not remember the exchange. Could have happened, but I am not going to apologise if I don't trust sources. I find most conservatives provide blogs or well-known right-wing sites as sources. And most of those sites offer up opinion articles.



Of course I'm interested in debate. That is the only reason I'm here. What insults? The original exchange between you and I had no insults. I merely asked you to back up YOUR INITIAL assertion. Remember, you made that assertion not I.



I did provide a counter claim. You ignored it. Nobody on this board has proved that wikipedia is a bad source. They haven't proved it. In fact, I know of a person on another board who provided a link (which I couldn't find) that compared wikipedia to Encyclopedia Britanicca and found they were both of equal value. And since when does the person who is QUESTIONING the other's words (in this case, me trying to get you to prove what you said) have to supply sources. I DIDN"T make the statements - YOU did -therefore they are yours to prove. If you can't, just say so. Addressing a) I provided a link, you didn't. WHo is lazy? b) absolutely interested, which is why I asked you to back up your assertion. You have failed to do so c) I defended my position. You have yet to do likewise.



Well your impression is dead wrong. What do you mean you didn't even start with me? I asked a civil question, you tried to throw the ball in my court. That leads me to believe you can't back up your claim. Futility indeed. How is asking somebody to back up their POV belittling them?? You can either back it up or not.



Personally? I don't think you can defend your position. I think you had a preconceived idea who Chavez was, and when I provided the link, you realised your argument didn't stack up. It was then that I started on you. I don't have a lot of time to debate, so when somebody starts giving me the run around like you did, it pisses me off. I don't want you dancing to anybody's tune at all, I want you to back up your POV with facts.



Thank you. Although I think your answer doesn't stack up in any measurable way.

Like you, I don't have a lot of time to spend on this, either. There is a larger context here and frankly, what you think at this point doesn't matter to me.

 

[nt250]

I do not remember the exchange. Could have happened, but I am not going to apologise if I don't trust sources. I find most conservatives provide blogs or well-known right-wing sites as sources. And most of those sites offer up opinion articles.

Maybe this site is different because it leans much more conservative than other message boards I've posted on, and I've only been posting here for a few months, but I don't find that to be true at all. Even if it is true here, liberals are much more guilty of it. And worse, not only are liberals guilty of using blogs and opinion pieces as sources (blogs are opinions by the way), liberals seem to be totally unable to tell the difference between an opinion article and a news article. If you don't believe that, just post an Ann Coulter column and it'll prove it to you.

I did provide a counter claim. You ignored it. Nobody on this board has proved that wikipedia is a bad source. They haven't proved it. In fact, I know of a person on another board who provided a link (which I couldn't find) that compared wikipedia to Encyclopedia Britanicca and found they were both of equal value. And since when does the person who is QUESTIONING the other's words (in this case, me trying to get you to prove what you said) have to supply sources.

The problem with that kind of argument is that it can't be countered at all, and it proves Karl's point that no source provided to you, other than one you already agree with, will satisfy you. It also proves that you are totally unwilling to concede an obvious point. And a pretty petty point at that.

Well your impression is dead wrong. What do you mean you didn't even start with me? I asked a civil question, you tried to throw the ball in my court. That leads me to believe you can't back up your claim. Futility indeed. How is asking somebody to back up their POV belittling them?? You can either back it up or not.

Maybe it's your user name. You are very Grumpy.

 

[jillian]

Maybe this site is different because it leans much more conservative than other message boards I've posted on, and I've only been posting here for a few months, but I don't find that to be true at all. Even if it is true here, liberals are much more guilty of it. And worse, not only are liberals guilty of using blogs and opinion pieces as sources (blogs are opinions by the way), liberals seem to be totally unable to tell the difference between an opinion article and a news article. If you don't believe that, just post an Ann Coulter column and it'll prove it to you.

Funny... I find that much more true of the extremist right. And what does Annie Coultergeist have to do with anything? She's full out bozo. You guys just love her cause she hates everyone who disagrees with her as much as you do.

The problem with that kind of argument is that it can't be countered at all, and it proves Karl's point that no source provided to you, other than one you already agree with, will satisfy you. It also proves that you are totally unwilling to concede an obvious point. And a pretty petty point at that.

No... sources have to be credible. Using an opinion piece from a right-wing extremist to prove a right wing extremist point does nothing but say other right wing extremists share the same OPINION.... not something most centrist or left-leaning folk would put much stock in.

Maybe it's your user name. You are very Grumpy.

From you, that's kinda funny, given that you've made it clear you find everyone who doesn't share your OPINIONS to be stupid.

Here's a hint... people who disagree with you simply disagree with you. Folks who seek religion aren't stupid... they're just religious. And I may not share their views or want them included in legislation which governs my behavior, but it has nothing to do with thinking they have a lack of intellect. Here's another hint... people who disagree with you on the WOT aren't stupid or unAmerican, we simply think you're on the wrong track and endangering the rest of us. Oh... and you don't get to call everyone else stupid and not get back responses in kind.

As for guns, well, I don't think people who are pro-gun control are stupid either. I think they're just incorrect... both because of the Second Amendment and because I happen to agree that if someone on the LIRR had a licensed handgun, that the psycho who shot all those folk would have been blown to smithereens before he got the chance to reload -- twice. But that's my OPINION. I think it's a correct one, but again, if we didn't think our OPINIONS were correct, we wouldn't hold to them.

Real simple..... not everyone shares the same opinion. And OTF is correct that moderation.... the ability to find common ground and seek solutions to problems... is far more productive than the garbage spewed by extremists (on both sides) which says, "screw you, do it out way or you're a terrorist supporter" or "do it our way or you're unAmerican". Now THAT'S stupidity....

 

[red states rule]

You Go, Hugo!
He called Bush the “devil”. He denounced the U.S. imperialist regime and railed against the CIA’s covert plot to supplant him. Then, after Sean Penn was finished speaking, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez had a few choice words for Bush as well.

What a breath of fresh air! What a treat it was to finally see someone stand up to the Bush junta and its imperialist masters who think they can pile huge sums of cash onto Third World countries and get something in return. Granted everything he said has been said before by a Democrat leader or progressive celebrity, but never so passionately and unapologetically blunt. What courage it took for Chavez to come here and voice his patriotic dissent against the government, when you can be imprisoned or shot as an Enemy of the People for doing the same thing in Venezuela. And you’d deserve it to, you CIA stooge!

The Right-Wing Noise Makers will probably dismiss his entire speech as the ranting of a megalomaniacal lunatic with googly eyes and delusions of grandeur, but the veracity of every word out of Chavez’s mouth is confirmed in Chomsky’s brilliant book. Need I remind my readers that not only is Noam Chomsky a superhuman sex machine, but he’s also possesses godlike intelligence. He's a tenured Professym at MIT, has made a fortune penning lucrative books slamming the evils of capitalism, and he gives long, turgid lectures that any self-respecting intellectual would be afraid to admit they don't understand. He's brilliant! BRILLIANT! Brilliant people never lie, and there’s no such thing as an intelligent lunatic. I’m living proof of that.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2006/09/you_go_hugo.html

 

[Annie]

I do not remember the exchange. Could have happened, but I am not going to apologise if I don't trust sources. I find most conservatives provide blogs or well-known right-wing sites as sources. And most of those sites offer up opinion articles.



Of course I'm interested in debate. That is the only reason I'm here. What insults? The original exchange between you and I had no insults. I merely asked you to back up YOUR INITIAL assertion. Remember, you made that assertion not I.



I did provide a counter claim. You ignored it. Nobody on this board has proved that wikipedia is a bad source. They haven't proved it. In fact, I know of a person on another board who provided a link (which I couldn't find) that compared wikipedia to Encyclopedia Britanicca and found they were both of equal value. And since when does the person who is QUESTIONING the other's words (in this case, me trying to get you to prove what you said) have to supply sources. I DIDN"T make the statements - YOU did -therefore they are yours to prove. If you can't, just say so. Addressing a) I provided a link, you didn't. WHo is lazy? b) absolutely interested, which is why I asked you to back up your assertion. You have failed to do so c) I defended my position. You have yet to do likewise.



Well your impression is dead wrong. What do you mean you didn't even start with me? I asked a civil question, you tried to throw the ball in my court. That leads me to believe you can't back up your claim. Futility indeed. How is asking somebody to back up their POV belittling them?? You can either back it up or not.



Personally? I don't think you can defend your position. I think you had a preconceived idea who Chavez was, and when I provided the link, you realised your argument didn't stack up. It was then that I started on you. I don't have a lot of time to debate, so when somebody starts giving me the run around like you did, it pisses me off. I don't want you dancing to anybody's tune at all, I want you to back up your POV with facts.



Thank you. Although I think your answer doesn't stack up in any measurable way.

Your welcome:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm

12/15/05

Wikipedia survives research test
John Seigenthaler Sr, AP
John Seigenthaler criticised Wikipedia's reliability
The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.

The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both works of reference and found few differences in accuracy.

Wikipedia is produced by volunteers, who add entries and edit any page.

But it has been criticised for the correctness of entries, most recently over the biography of prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler.

Open approach

Wikipedia was founded in 2001 and has since grown to more than 1.8 million articles in 200 languages. Some 800,000 entries are in English.

It is based on wikis, open-source software which lets anyone fiddle with a webpage, anyone reading a subject entry can disagree, edit, add, delete, or replace the entry.


We're very pleased with the results and we're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good

It relies on 13,000 volunteer contributors, many of whom are experts in a particular field, to edit previously submitted articles.

In order to test its reliability, Nature conducted a peer review of scientific entries on Wikipedia and the well-established Encyclopedia Britannica.

The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about the source of the information.

"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia," reported Nature.

"But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales welcomed the study.

"We're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good," he said.

Writing style

Nature said its reviewers found that Wikipedia entries were often poorly structured and confused.

The Encyclopedia Britannica declined to comment directly on the findings; but a spokesman highlighted the quality of the entries on the free resource.

"But it is not the case that errors creep in on an occasional basis or that a couple of articles are poorly written," Tom Panelas, director of corporate communications is quoted as saying in Nature.

"There are lots of articles in that condition. They need a good editor."

Wikipedia came under fire earlier this month from prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler.

The founding editorial director of USA Today attacked a Wikipedia entry that incorrectly named him as a suspect in the assassinations of president John F Kennedy and his brother, Robert.

The false information was the work of Tennessean Brian Chase, who said he was trying to trick a co-worker.

Wikipedia has responded to the criticisms by tightening up procedures.

Next month it plans to begin testing a new mechanism for reviewing the accuracy of its articles.

 

[nt250]

Funny... I find that much more true of the extremist right. And what does Annie Coultergeist have to do with anything? She's full out bozo. You guys just love her cause she hates everyone who disagrees with her as much as you do.



No... sources have to be credible. Using an opinion piece from a right-wing extremist to prove a right wing extremist point does nothing but say other right wing extremists share the same OPINION.... not something most centrist or left-leaning folk would put much stock in.



From you, that's kinda funny, given that you've made it clear you find everyone who doesn't share your OPINIONS to be stupid.

Here's a hint... people who disagree with you simply disagree with you. Folks who seek religion aren't stupid... they're just religious. And I may not share their views or want them included in legislation which governs my behavior, but it has nothing to do with thinking they have a lack of intellect. Here's another hint... people who disagree with you on the WOT aren't stupid or unAmerican, we simply think you're on the wrong track and endangering the rest of us. Oh... and you don't get to call everyone else stupid and not get back responses in kind.

As for guns, well, I don't think people who are pro-gun control are stupid either. I think they're just incorrect... both because of the Second Amendment and because I happen to agree that if someone on the LIRR had a licensed handgun, that the psycho who shot all those folk would have been blown to smithereens before he got the chance to reload -- twice. But that's my OPINION. I think it's a correct one, but again, if we didn't think our OPINIONS were correct, we wouldn't hold to them.

Real simple..... not everyone shares the same opinion. And OTF is correct that moderation.... the ability to find common ground and seek solutions to problems... is far more productive than the garbage spewed by extremists (on both sides) which says, "screw you, do it out way or you're a terrorist supporter" or "do it our way or you're unAmerican". Now THAT'S stupidity....

Jillian,

Can you please do me the favor of keeping your replies to me on the subject of the post you are replying to, and not on several that I've made on different threads?

I'm having enough trouble keeping track of threads as it is.

As far as your reply here about the subject of my post you replied to, I suggest you take your own advice.