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

[jillian]

Have you even been reading this thread?

Of course not. He's too busy negging me because I called him on it.

Have a good day... off and running. :gang1:

 

[nt250]

Because you're confusing Wikipedia... which contains "facts" with the "opinions" of political pundits and bloggers which contain nothing more than opinions and which aren't reliable.

But carry on...

Oh...and there was no argument about Wikipedia until you created one.

Whatever.

You've proved you don't know the law. Much less what the difference is between a fact and an opinion, which is probably why the law is so tough for you. You've also proved you are incapable making a valid argument without insulting someone. But don't feel bad about that. That makes you a great candidate as a judge.

Have fun.

 

[musicman]

lol... I like that..

The "jillian-meter" has found that factcheck.org is generally reliable(and note the word, GENERALLY). I've relied on it many times and if you note, factcheck is equally demanding of both left and right-wing claims. So there ya go.

The number I gave wiki wasn't my own. It was a from general assessment done by people far more knowledgeable about those things than I am. Just don't have time to be bothered on a beautiful Sunday looking for it.

LOL - no biggie. I was just looking for some context. I think we've pretty well established that using Wikipedia as an "unimpeachable source" leaves one standing on somewhat shaky ground.

Enjoy your day!

 

[musicman]

Well, NT, I have to back Jillian up on this one.

Hell, man - you ought to just make that your sig, and get it over with. I think someone's nursing a little crush...

 

[dilloduck]

Have you even been reading this thread?

YA--I've been reading it but I'm getting tired of the Wikipedia bullshit and was trying to get back to Rangels' ludicrous statement. It's an "issue" that the libs constantly claim to be begging for but constantly dodge. Since they can't deal with the lies I guess they want to duke it out over "sources". I'm sure that's on the list of fallacies that Nienna posted.

 

[Dr Grump]

You can't dispute an opinion.

Of course you can. Can you point out which parts of the article are opinions?

 

[Dr Grump]

No shit.

This whole argument about Wikipedia proves that.

It is my opinion that Wikipedia is not a valid source to use to back up an argument. Nothing I've read here has proved otherwise.

If Grump can use that standard why can't I?

Why is wikipedia not a valid source? Surely if the facts in the article are disputable and provably so, then it shouldn't be a problem. And are you comparing an online encyclopaedia with opinionated blog sites or overtly neocon or conservative sites? Because that is the standard I am using.

 

[Dr Grump]

Whatever.

You've proved you don't know the law. Much less what the difference is between a fact and an opinion, which is probably why the law is so tough for you. You've also proved you are incapable making a valid argument without insulting someone. But don't feel bad about that. That makes you a great candidate as a judge.

Have fun.

If Jillian doesn't know the law, how come she has a career in it? Surely if she didn't know the law she wouldn't have a career. As for insults, this coming from the person who called religious people stupid. How can that NOT be an insult. BTW, I'm a non-believer just like you, but to say religious folk are stupid is about as silly as it gets.

 

[Dr Grump]

Hell, man - you ought to just make that your sig, and get it over with. I think someone's nursing a little crush...

If I was to use your standard you would have a whole heap of crushes going on. :tng: I unashamedly back Jillian up on most things (except Israel and death taxes) :shocked:

 

[nt250]

Of course you can. Can you point out which parts of the article are opinions?

To you? No.

 

[Dr Grump]

To you? No.

:tears1:

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

Facts > Opinions, the converse is not true.

Is thruthout a credible source? Karl Rove says "no".

LOL - no biggie. I was just looking for some context. I think we've pretty well established that using Wikipedia as an "unimpeachable source" leaves one standing on somewhat shaky ground.

Ya, because Wikipedia's been hacked over and over, it's good for the links that are usually at the bottom of the web page.

It was more the pull quotes, only the statements on the page that were neutral or positive toward Chavez were posted. Others were omitted, such as:

However he recently proposed a constitutionally binding referendum to allow for a third term. Chávez has said that if the opposition boycotts the 2006 Venezuelan presidential election, he might hold a referendum to abolish the presidential term limit of 12 years and allow him to run for re-election "indefinitely".

According to an article in The Washington Post a program called "Mission Identity", to fast track voter registration of immigrants to Venezuela — including Chávez supporters benefiting from his subsidies — has been put in place prior to the upcoming 2006 presidential elections

then:

Critics also point to figures released by the president of the Venezuelan National Statistics Institute, Elías Eljuri, which showed that poverty had actually risen by more than 10 percentage points under Chávez (to 53% in 2004). Chávez called for a new measure of poverty, a "social well-being index". Under this new definition, poverty registers at 40 percent

As for Rangel, who knows what he's ever thinking when he shoots his mouth off, the UN headquarters is an island in the middle of his Congressional district, so he probably felt compelled to say something. Or he might think Chomsky's work sucks, and it does.

 

[jillian]

If I was to use your standard you would have a whole heap of crushes going on. :tng: I unashamedly back Jillian up on most things (except Israel and death taxes) :shocked:

Inheritance taxes...

 

[jillian]

LOL - no biggie. I was just looking for some context. I think we've pretty well established that using Wikipedia as an "unimpeachable source" leaves one standing on somewhat shaky ground.

Enjoy your day!

I don't think I used the word "unimpeachable". Like I said, it's reliable to a fairly high degree, though. And if I have a choice between wiki and some biased blogger or pundit's opinion, I think I'll go with wiki.

I think we can both go with factcheck.org, though... pretty good for clearing the smoke.

 

[musicman]

If I was to use your standard you would have a whole heap of crushes going on. :tng:

You're babbling again.

I unashamedly back Jillian up on most things (except Israel and death taxes) :shocked:

...and you're so gal-LANT about it :guitar1:

 

[musicman]

I don't think I used the word "unimpeachable".

I'll concede that.

Like I said, it's reliable to a fairly high degree, though. And if I have a choice between wiki and some biased blogger or pundit's opinion, I think I'll go with wiki.

Your choice - but, again - I think we've established that its use must come with some qualification.

I think we can both go with factcheck.org, though... pretty good for clearing the smoke.

ROFLMAO - and replacing it with what - John Kerry's Own Special Recipe Pea Soup?

 

[musicman]

It was more the pull quotes, only the statements on the page that were neutral or positive toward Chavez were posted. Others were omitted...

Excellent, excellent point - cherry-picking is as bad as lying.

 

[musicman]

Holy Moley - I appear to have accidentally "neg repped" UnAmericanYou to the tune of 14 points! I'm terribly sorry, my friend; that'll learn me to pay better attention to what I'm doing!

I meant to praise what I thought was a very good post; by my count I owe you 42 points. I'll make it up to you as soon as I'm able, I promise. Dumb me!

 

[trobinett]

So, we ALL agree that South American dictators SHOULDN'T be taken serious, and when "out of country", should be on a short chain.

:baby4:

 

[Gunny]

Because you're confusing Wikipedia... which contains "facts" with the "opinions" of political pundits and bloggers which contain nothing more than opinions and which aren't reliable.

But carry on...

Oh...and there was no argument about Wikipedia until you created one.

I have to disagree here. I don't use Wikipedia as an unimpeachable source because it is common knowledge that it sometimes contains erroneous information; therfore, not reliable. I would think one would want something unasailable as a reference.