RWA - Omg, get real.

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
The thing is though, you never really did present your side. You just labeled my arguments as incoherent and not pursuasive. I reread the entire thing. You never once presented your side. Not once. I don't expect you to now, so I guess we can just let this thread die. You're tedious. Oh, well, no hard feelings.

Which issue are you talking about exactly. We've gone over a lot of stuff on different threads. Ask me anything.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

I'm not sure I really want to anymore, but I'll give it one last try. You say that there is a liberal media bias. I disagree. I laid out a number of instances (more papers endorsing Bush, press ignoring factual errors in Bush's tax plan debate, the reaming of Gore by the press for "exaggerations" etc.), and you chose not talk about those facts but about something else. Those facts are but a drop in the bucket, but how do you explain them if the media has such a liberal bias? Nearly every form of the "mainstream media" engaged in all of those things, so how is that explained? Those were all harmful to Gore, and helpful to Bush. On Fox News, you read the post, I'm not going to repeat it, but how do you believe Fox News is fair and balanced with the facts I laid out to you? If you actually answer the questions, which I believe is the only real way to get you to engage in a debate on these issues, then I will take back my characterization of you as a "wussie" Ball's in your court.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
I'm not sure I really want to anymore, but I'll give it one last try. You say that there is a liberal media bias. I disagree. I laid out a number of instances (more papers endorsing Bush, press ignoring factual errors in Bush's tax plan debate, the reaming of Gore by the press for "exaggerations" etc.), and you chose not talk about those facts but about something else. Those facts are but a drop in the bucket, but how do you explain them if the media has such a liberal bias? Nearly every form of the "mainstream media" engaged in all of those things, so how is that explained? Those were all harmful to Gore, and helpful to Bush. On Fox News, you read the post, I'm not going to repeat it, but how do you believe Fox News is fair and balanced with the facts I laid out to you? If you actually answer the questions, which I believe is the only real way to get you to engage in a debate on these issues, then I will take back my characterization of you as a "wussie" Ball's in your court.

And I in turn you gave you a list of facts in the form of an essay I agree with. You tried to explain it away as "negativism sells" That's B.S. Just in making that argument however, you conceded that something needed explaining. Debate over. Bias conceded. I won.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
And I in turn you gave you a list of facts in the form of an essay I agree with. You tried to explain it away as "negativism sells" That's B.S. Just in making that argument however, you conceded that something needed explaining. Debate over. Bias conceded. I won.

 

[_dmp_]

SD - if you want Arguments to your laments...

SEARCH.

Nothing you present is something OTHER than the same, lame rhetoric-laden Liberal BS we see day in and day out.



Have a great day!

- Darin

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by jimnyc

Thanks jimmy. You made it possible, bro!

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

I should have know better. Hey RWA, did you read the part in my post about answering my questions was the only way I could get you to engage in a debate about the substance of my posts? Evidently not, or you just chose to ignore it. By the way, since I DO address your posts instead of spinning, ignoring or dodging them, I will one last time. You said that my argument about the sensationalist aspects of the media was B.S. and it was actually a media bias, how do you substantiate it. You see RWA, it's not enough for educated people to simply dismiss a claim as "B.S." without explaining why. I believe what I said was a totally valid claim, but even if you don't agree, why don't you explain why? Why don't you engage me on the substance of my post? Let's try one more time. If you disagree, don't make unsubstantiated claims, try to refute my arguments. This is really simple. All you have to do is take what I said, and try to explain why it isn't correct, or cannot be reasonably interpreted in the way I explained. That's all there is to it. Really simple. If you want to dodge it again, that's okay. I'm sure by now everyone reading this thread sees you dodging and knows it. I'm sure you know it as well. Go ahead, one more time. Try to engage my post on it's substance and refute my points if possible. Anything else, and I know that you know you're backing down from a debate you don't feel you can win.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Nothing you present is something OTHER than the same, lame rhetoric-laden GOP BS we see day in and day out.

:

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

Dmp, I make the same suggestion to you. You think what I'm saying is the same lame liberal rhetoric you hear every day. Okay, fine. But prove it. Why do you think so? Don't make unsubstanitated claims. Hold on though, I've learned something from trying to get Mr. Wishy washy RWA to take a stand, I have to ask a direct question, which often doesn't work either. Q: What in my claims leads you to believe that what I've said is the same old lame liberal rhetoric you hear every day?

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
...you present...something OTHER than the same, lame rhetoric-laden GOP BS we see day in and day out. Thank you, dmp...you are a breath of fresh air to me.
:

Are you coming on to me? :cof:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
I should have know better. Hey RWA, did you read the part in my post about answering my questions was the only way I could get you to engage in a debate about the substance of my posts? Evidently not, or you just chose to ignore it. By the way, since I DO address your posts instead of spinning, ignoring or dodging them, I will one last time. You said that my argument about the sensationalist aspects of the media was B.S. and it was actually a media bias, how do you substantiate it. You see RWA, it's not enough for educated people to simply dismiss a claim as "B.S." without explaining why. I believe what I said was a totally valid claim, but even if you don't agree, why don't you explain why? Why don't you engage me on the substance of my post? Let's try one more time. If you disagree, don't make unsubstantiated claims, try to refute my arguments. This is really simple. All you have to do is take what I said, and try to explain why it isn't correct, or cannot be reasonably interpreted in the way I explained. That's all there is to it. Really simple. If you want to dodge it again, that's okay. I'm sure by now everyone reading this thread sees you dodging and knows it. I'm sure you know it as well. Go ahead, one more time. Try to engage my post on it's substance and refute my points if possible. Anything else, and I know that you know you're backing down from a debate you don't feel you can win.

The negativism IS the Bias. You conceded the negativism, but attribute it to a wrong cause, that cause being:" negativity sells", sometimes positivity sells, as proveable by the fact that fox news is number one and it shows more positive aspects of the war, if negativity sold, CNN would be number 1# but it's not.

I may be ignoring your irrelevant argument. But you're ignoring mine that currently has you pinned to wall, and truly is a valid testament to the actual truth of the issue. But go ahead and try another page long post if you wish. I have time.

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
dmp, I make the same suggestion to you. You think what I'm saying is the same lame liberal rhetoric you hear every day. Okay, fine. But prove it. Why do you think so? Don't make unsubstanitated claims. Hold on though, I've learned something from trying to get Mr. Wishy washy RWA to take a stand, I have to ask a direct question, which often doesn't work either. Q: What in my claims leads you to believe that what I've said is the same old lame liberal rhetoric you hear every day?

No. I'm not going to waste my precious time, and YOUR tax dollar researching your :bs:, only to have you negate any data I provide. It's a circle, you know? You aren't after 'truth' - you are after 'what you want the truth to be'.

Enjoy your day.

- darin

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
I'm sure by now everyone reading this thread sees you dodging and knows it.

Negative.

There's really no need to obfuscate the issue with fancy words and loaded questions. I too believe there is a liberal media bias. I've argued this in the past and don't really feel like getting into another 2 day debate over it. I respect the fact that you feel the opposite is true, but I disagree with you.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by dmp
Are you coming on to me? :cof:

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

RWA, I totally disagree with your reasoning and position, and I'll explain why, but I thank God you actually stopped all the dodging crap. I mean really. Okay. We'll get to the negativity side of the argument in a second. First of all, if my other arguments are irrelevant, then why not state the reason? If you really believe my arguments are so easily refuted and irrelevant, why won't you discuss, engage, or attempt to refute them? Go ahead, why not? Those arguments are damning evidence for demonstrating the "liberal media's" existence is a myth. Why don't you attempt to either refute the facts, or to challenge my interpretation of them? Go ahead. We just made some progress. You at least talked about one thing in the post that I mentioned and attempted to explain why I was wrong. That's part of debate. Now finish it. My arguments, either attempt to refute them or concede that my reasoning is correct.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

Dmp, you don't need "data" to explain why you think what I said why the same lame liberal rhetoric you hear everyday. All you need to do is explain your reasoning. I think that you claim not to want to waste time, and other things, because you made a statement without thinking about it. You made an unsubstantiated claim, and I called you on it, and you now back away from the debate. Okay, that's fine, but don't mistake me of being the one only finding what I want to find.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
RWA, I totally disagree with your reasoning and position, and I'll explain why, but I thank God you actually stopped all the dodging crap. I mean really. Okay. We'll get to the negativity side of the argument in a second. First of all, if my other arguments are irrelevant, then why not state the reason? If you really believe my arguments are so easily refuted and irrelevant, why won't you discuss, engage, or attempt to refute them? Go ahead, why not? Those arguments are damning evidence for demonstrating the "liberal media's" existence is a myth. Why don't you attempt to either refute the facts, or to challenge my interpretation of them? Go ahead. We just made some progress. You at least talked about one thing in the post that I mentioned and attempted to explain why I was wrong. That's part of debate. Now finish it. My arguments, either attempt to refute them or concede that my reasoning is correct.

I don't need to refute your arguments to show a liberal bias. The topic should be the focus, not your precious arguments. Your arguments aren't damning. I feel my article I posted IS damning. You even acknowledged the negativity. What you won't accept is that negativity is the liberal bias. You didn't disprove my reasoning. Mine disproves your assertion there is no bias, it's really your move again.

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
dmp, you don't need "data" to explain why you think what I said why the same lame liberal rhetoric you hear everyday. All you need to do is explain your reasoning. I think that you claim not to want to waste time, and other things, because you made a statement without thinking about it. You made an unsubstantiated claim, and I called you on it, and you now back away from the debate. Okay, that's fine, but don't mistake me of being the one only finding what I want to find.

I don't NEED to do anything really. I don't feel the 'call' to educate you in matters of Truth.

Thanks!

-darin

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

Ah, but you do need to disprove my arguments to chip away at my reasoning that there isn't a liberal bias. I mean come on, this is simple logic. If there isn't a liberal media bias, then there can't be one, can there? This is really simple. But, since I, and Not YOU, choose to address the arguments of the other side, and since I, not YOU, have intellectual honesty, I will talk about the negativity in relationship to "liberal media bias". You have a fatal flaw in your reasoning RWA. The reporting of “negative” news stories is nothing new to the Bush administration. The New York Times, considered to be a liberal newspaper, attacked Gore relentlessly during the 2000 campaign. MSNBC, CNN, AND ABC all ran highly negative coverage about Clinton’s Kosovo campaign. Very few news sources from the “liberal media” reported anything positive about the bombing, even though this likely saved thousands of lives. That is the problem with your reasoning. It’s not just George Bush. It’s relative to the current administration, and you clearly don’t want to see that, because it totally and completely defeats your argument. Now, how about you address my arguments, since I addressed YOURS, and let's see if you really want to debate or whether you'll start dodging again.

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
Ah, but you do need to disprove my arguments to chip away at my reasoning that there isn't a liberal bias. I mean come on, this is simple logic. If there isn't a liberal media bias, then there can't be one, can there? This is really simple. But, since I, and Not YOU, choose to address the arguments of the other side, and since I, not YOU, have intellectual honesty, I will talk about the negativity in relationship to "liberal media bias". You have a fatal flaw in your reasoning RWA. The reporting of “negative” news stories is nothing new to the Bush administration. The New York Times, considered to be a liberal newspaper, attacked Gore relentlessly during the 2000 campaign. MSNBC, CNN, AND ABC all ran highly negative coverage about Clinton’s Kosovo campaign. Very few news sources from the “liberal media” reported anything positive about the bombing, even though this likely saved thousands of lives. That is the problem with your reasoning. It’s not just George Bush. It’s relative to the current administration, and you clearly don’t want to see that, because it totally and completely defeats your argument. Now, how about you address my arguments, since I addressed YOURS, and let's see if you really want to debate or whether you'll start dodging again.

wow.