Hyroglyphx writes:
quote:
This is getting ridiculous
Indeed. The more you avoid responding to those "stubborn facts" your own signature warns you against, the more ridiculous your position becomes.
quote:
and Rrhain's insane paranoia for all things he perceives is against his interests simply typifies an unwillingness for partiality.
(*chuckle*)
Read, "I don't actually have a response to the facts, so I'm going to cast aspersions at the people who point it out to me and hope to high heaven nobody notices."
I'm quite comfortable with partiality. As you have noticed, I am quite partial to certain positions. None of that has any relevance to the question at hand: Was the National Journal's methodology a load of crap or not?
Salon pointed out the specific ways in which the NJ's methodology failed. Your only response was that "They're liberal!" But that isn't an argument. Liberal people can still present factual information and you haven't responded to that.
Do you have any evidence that the analysis provided by Salon was faulty?
No? Then on what basis do you continue to defend the National Journal? This fake outrage of yours of "a pox on both your houses" is precisely that: Fake.
quote:
Rahvin stated that Obama is considered a centrist.
Incorrect. Rahvin stated Obama
is a centrist. There's a difference between being something and being perceived as being something.
quote:
That simply is not true for many people, as evidenced by the incalculable number of times his voting record was mentioned.
And that's completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter what fools think. As your own signature states and what you have completely ignored is that facts are not altered by opinion. When a source determining a position has a crappy methodology for calculating that position, then their conclusion becomes immaterial no matter how many people fall for the lie.
If two million people do a dumb thing, it's still a dumb thing.
quote:
Was the NJ in on it? I have no idea
Read: I saw the information presented, it conflicted with the pre-conceived notion I had, so I ignored it and am now hoping that nobody notices.
Do you have any evidence that the analysis provided by Salon is faulty? "They're liberal!" is not an argument.
quote:
nor do I care.
Bullshit. You care quite a lot or you wouldn't still be trying to defend the National Journal. Your fake outrage is precisely that: Fake.
quote:
My furnishing the NJ article was just one way to show that Obama's voting record was routinely suspect
But you were shown that the NJ article was full of shit. And here you are still defending it, pretending to be "independent." Your fake outrage is precisely that: Fake.
quote:
NOT to agree with what they are saying
Then why are you still defending it?
quote:
ONLY acknowledging that people claim he's an uber-liberal president.
But who cares what fools think? They were lied to and they fell for the lie. How is that anybody's fault but the liars? And how does that give the lie any legitimacy? If two million people do a dumb thing, it's still a dumb thing.
quote:
And as president he now has to juggle between being chummy enough with Republicans so they don't filibuster
And in all that "being chummy," exactly how many Republicans has he won over with regard to anything? And given the makeup of the Senate, Obama doesn't need any Republicans because there are enough Democrats and Independents to overcome all Republican resistance.
No, the threat of a filibuster comes not from the Republicans but from the Democrats.
quote:
and chummy enough with Democrats that they don't question his allegiance to their party and interests.
And exactly how many Democrats has he won over? The filibuster threat that is in the Senate comes not from the Republicans because there simply aren't enough Republicans to actually mount a filibuster. It can only succeed if Democrats join in. You seem to have forgotten that the health care bill, for example, got caught up in the finance committee because of Democrats. Not because it wasn't liberal enough but because it was too liberal. Snowe's complaint that the suggestions for health care are too good for actual people is irrelevant because there aren't enough Republicans to make a difference. It's Baucis' complaint that it's too good for the citizenry that is the problem.
This fake outrage of yours of "a pox on both your houses" is precisely that: Fake.
quote:
Now there is this completely unnecessary and off-topic struggle to make a point on the semantics of Salon and the National Journal.
But you're the one who brought it up! Are you saying your entire argument was off-topic?
Rahvin made a point and you tried to counter it by bringing up the National Journal. You were then directed to Salon in order to show you that the methodology used by the National Journal was a crock. But here you are, still trying to defend the National Journal and in fake outrage that anybody would call you on it.
Yes, there are people who believe what the NJ said. But what difference does that make if what the NJ said was complete bullshit? If someone lies to you and you fall for it, how does that give legitimacy to the lie?
quote:
All that I said was using one biased source to refute the validity of another biased source nullifies itself because it is a self-defeating premise.
And you were shown that this argument of yours is bullshit. Indeed, Salon is to the left of what is called "conservative" in this country. But how does that alter the facts of their analysis?
Do you have any evidence that the analysis provided by Salon of the NJ's methodology is faulty in any way? "They're liberal!" is not an argument. If the facts support a "liberal" position, that doesn't alter the validity of those facts. They're "stubborn things," as your own signature points out, and your opinion is not sufficient to alter reality.
Where is your evidence that Salon's analysis was faulty?
quote:
I am NOT trying to use the NJ to prove the validity of their article
Bullshit. You're doing everything you possibly can to prove the validity of their article. That's why you're avoiding discussing the facts presented in the Salon article. Instead, you're simply attempting to smear Salon as unreliable due to "bias" in the hopes that "liberals" will cower in fear at being accused of such and thus drop the argument, leaving your original claim from the NJ intact.
Instead, you're getting pushback and are now in disingenuous shock that you're being called on it.
Where is your evidence that the Salon analysis of the NJ is faulty? "They're liberal!" is not an argument.
quote:
only proving that sentiments such as they shared are COMMON.
Irrelevant. Commonly held false beliefs do not make those beliefs suddenly true. If two million people do a dumb thing, it's still a dumb thing. If someone lies to you and you fall for it, how is that anybody's fault but the person who lied to you?
quote:
Now Rrhain is going off on one of his usual tirades
(*chuckle*)
Read: I still don't actually have a response to the facts presented, so I'll smear the person who presented them and hope that nobody notices.
It's a very simple question. Is there a reason why you're doing everything you can to avoid it?
Do you have any evidence that Salon's analysis of the NJ's methodology was faulty?
quote:
and anyone that might not bear the allegiances he does must be in bed with FOX news
"In bed"? Please. The fact that you use the same tactics they are simply means you use the same tactics. They are hardly new. They go back to Hearst.
But since you bring it up....
quote:
yet if only he looks 1 or 2 pages earlier in this thread, that I was extremely critical of neo-conservatism.
Right, because you would never engage in fake outrage.
quote:
It's amusing. The closer one is to being impartial and seeing both sides of an argument, the less one-sided, one-minded individuals try to claim you are what they actually are -- biased.
Indeed. That's why you're doing everything you can to avoid the facts you have been presented with: They violate your partiality, your bias, your one-sidedness, your single-mindedness. And because you're getting pushback, you're doing everything you can to smear the people who are pointing out the holes in your argument rather than respond to those facts.
Where is your evidence that Salon's analysis of the NJ's methodology is faulty?
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
™ Version 4.2