Slashdot should have linked to a neutral source of the AP story.
You have utterly failed to provide any reason why it matters.
You're equating legitimate, fact-based advocacy of a policies that will improve the standard of living of middle class in this country (the left), with the propaganda outlets of the right, who lie, cheat, distort, and photoshop fake crowds in order to convince average chumps that it's really in their best interest to transfer all the wealth in the country to a few hundred billionaires.
Wow. Almost all of that is lies. Bravo.
First, I can rattle off scores of lies by the left. The lie that the mandate is to protect the people who might not choose to have health insurance, in case they might need it (when in fact it's to make sure their money is put in the insurance system BECAUSE they likely won't need it, so other people can use it). The lie that people with insurance won't be forced to change it (the mandate does precisely that, forces people to change their insurance a few years down the road). The lie that the bill is "bipartisan" just because one Republican (in the House) voted for it.
And then there's your lie that it will improve the standrd of living for the middle class. In fact, the middle class mostly HAS health insurance that meets the minimum standards of the bill already, so this bill at best will not make a significant difference for the overwhelming majority of them.
It will make a significant difference for a very small number of people in the middle class who can't afford insurance now. But that's about it.
And it likely won't decrease the cost of their insurance (the CBO says premiums will continue to rise), so... no help there either.
And finally -- because it's getting late, not because there's not more lies in there -- the "right" does not want to transfer money to billionaires, but, on the contrary, wants to implement policies to increase competition, lower costs, and have everyone keep more of their own money.
What's your stake in the game? Why would you advocate a point of view that will hurt you, your family, and all your friends?
Of course, I've already demonstrated it won't hurt the middle class, but even if you were right: some of us are not, like you, selfish. We advocate for what is good and right and just for everyone, not just what helps ourselves. I advocate for liberty, pure and simple, which is why an individual mandate -- which is the OPPOSITE of liberty -- is completely unacceptable to me.
Nobody here is rich enough to truly benefit from Republican policies
Nonsense. If the policies I want to see from the GOP were implemented, it would mean my insurance would cost a hell of a lot less (not to mention future college tuition for my kids, since the Democrats put in massive college subsidies in the health insurance reconciliation bill that will result in even higher costs for higher ed).
You really don't have any idea what you're talking about, I think. You just rattle off inane talking points and hope no one reads them who knows more than you. It's a vain hope, given how little you know.
Interestingly, social psychology studies have demonstrated atheists are in fact quite similar to the strongly religious.
I doubt it. What is likely shown is that zealots of ALL kinds share such common characteristics. Someone is a "personal atheist" who isn't trying to beat up people who disagree with him, is very different from the people that discussion was about: atheists who are trying to stick Christians' nose in poop.
The only truism regarding types of people and characteristics is that some people suck, and some people suck less, and it's entirely regardless of what beliefs or principles they have.
He would also be very comfortable with "separate but equal". He wants the right to practice racial discrimination. He calls it "rights of association".
Yes, that is fundamental to liberty.
I would not go to any place of business that racially discriminated, but everyone has that right. The government takes away that right. There's a fine argument to be made that this was necessary due to the government-backed racial discrimination (including slavery, of course) that infected our nation for many years (i.e., private race discrimination is heightened in both quantity and effect because of government actions), so I am not looking to overturn this policy any time soon. But true liberty is a fine goal to have, no?
Are you really claiming that the NYT is as biased as Breitbart? Odd.
No, it's MORE biased than Breitbart.
Hope that clears it up for you.
Seriously, the editorial pages are at least as biased as Breitbart's, and the news coverage on NYT is MORE slanted, because while both have selection bias, the NYT actually writes its own stories, whereas Breitbart links to much more objective sources like the AP.
And yet you continue to argue without actually comprehending what I wrote.
False.
I did not jump to any conclusion... I reasoned the conlcusion based upon what you had wrote.
You jumped to conclusions based on incomplete data... which is precisely what you said there is something "wrong" with doing.
Please show me the fault in my reasoning that makes my conclusion invalid.
Shrug. Simple. I had no assumption. I implied no assumption. Yet you said I had the assumption.
When the point you make hinges upon the claim made by that person, yes.
Wow. Even though OTHER PEOPLE had ALREADY replied to him that it was an AP story, I am in "error" if I don't make a reply to him saying the exact same thing?
That's the dumbest thing I've read all week, which is saying something, since I've been listening to Pelosi.
You're a liar.
No
Yes.
It is not lying to state what I believe to be the truth.
Nope. If you state something with a careless disregard for truth or falsity, that is also a lie.
I have yet to ever see you acknowledge an error, or the validity of a differing opinion, on slashdot.
So? Your tiny sample is meaningless, of course.
Instead I see you reduce yourself to playing semantics games to try and discredit the other person.
You're a liar.
I have seen you make specious arguments time and again to try and defend your posts against conflicting evidence.
You're a liar.
You have yet to "correct" me on either of my original claims -- namely, that incomplete evidence should not be used to jump to conclusions
I didn't correct you on that claim, but I did point out that YOU did that to ME: you jumped to conclusions by claiming that I assumed you were accusing me of jumping to conclusions.
and that Andrew Breitbart intentionally posts material on Breitbart.com to lead people along his political agenda.
You're a liar. That was not your claim, ever, let alone originally. You said THAT ARTICLE was INTENDED (meaning, the writing itself) for political purposes, not that articles in general are POSTED on the site for political purposes.
And in case you missed it, since I posted AC in another thread... yes, I do believe you're functionally retarded when it comes to debate
Considering all your lies, inconsistencies, and general incompetence -- still waiting for you to show where I argued a straw man! -- that's a meaningless belief.
Ok, so this is the point in the argument where I am forced to remind you of what you actually said.
False. I know exactly what I wrote.
Them: It is relevant. Breitbart is a political operative and completely biased.
False. That is not what was said by them.
the fact that it was printed there is relevant
False.
just like pointing out that something came from dailykos would be relevant
If it were original Breitbart content, you MIGHT have a point. As it was not, you do not. And even if it were original Breitbart content, unless you can point out biases in the story, it's still not relevant: it's just ad hominem.
I don't read dailykos much, but I've never read an original news story there, only opinion, and opinionated "news analysis," pieces. Breitbart is largely news articles, and largely from other sources. A very poor comparison.
It is always relevant to point out publication biases.
As it was AP content, not Breitbart content, you are arguing against yourself.
Yes, I don't know. Obviously, everything we say has the caveat "if the numbers are accurate." That said, you're right that many of these exemptions could be on information requests over and above the ones received in 2009.
You do not consider Breitbart to be a political operative.
His WEB SITE is not a "political operative," nor is whether HE is a political operative related to everything (or even most things) published on his site.
The problem with your response is that you claimed the issues were different, when clearly they are the same issue
No, they are not. I was responding "false" to the claim that the breitbart web site is a "political operative."
You referred to "your assumption that I was saying that." But I had no such assumption as you falsely asserted. You jumped to conclusions.
Sorry, I jumped to conclusions there: I assumed you knew what you wrote. My bad.
Why would you write it if you took no pleasure in it?
To inform you of that which you seemed unaware of. Why else?
Your response to my post did not address the meaning of my post at all... it set up a straw man
False on both counts. You wrote, "the article at breitbart is intended to lead people who like to jump to conclusions that support their politics." I pointed out the fact that the Associated Press wrote the article, which certainly does address your meaning, because I think you'll have a hard time convincing anyone that the AP writes such articles to support their own politics.
And I set up no straw man at all. Perhaps you don't know what a "straw man" is? A straw man is creating an argument you didn't make, and then attacking it as though it were your own. What argument did I make up and attack as though it was yours, that wasn't yours? Be specific!
You allowed the original poster's claim that the piece was a Breitbart piece be left uncontested.
Um. So I should contest every claim everyone makes that is false? And if I don't, I am in error? That's utterly irrational, especially given that I never replied to him at all, and that other people had already informed him that it was an AP piece.
Whatever. I'm done arguing with you... it's pointless.
Yes, when someone is as irrational and wrong as you, arguing with me is pretty pointless.
you cannot allow any kind of differing opinion into your consciousness
You're a liar.
you will spend your time making specious arguments to try to discredit the arguments of those you disagree with
You're a liar.
Please just do me one favor
I already did: I corrected you on several points. But you couldn't even thank me for that, so why should I do more favors for you?
Correct. However, you used those as evidence that I "hate atheists." Despite the fact that they don't say such a thing, either implicitly or explicitly.
So, why are you lying about me? Or are you just that stupid?
So are these
Only some of them (most of them are not mine, in fact). You quoted... poorly.
I'm not misrepresenting you in the slightest.
When you said I hate atheists, you downright LIED about me.
You're an archetypal, callous, right-wing blowhard who sees failure as weakness, and life as being about strife, not cooperation and happiness.
False on all counts, except that I am a right-wing blowhard. I am certainly not archetypal, nor remotely callous. Strength can only be gained through failure. Life IS about strife, of course, but also about cooperation and happiness.
However, nothing I said demonstrates callousness, nor a lack of cooperation. You -- pathetically -- apparently believe that if I am against government forcing us to do something, I am therefore against it being done. This fallacy is old and stupid, but many people still cling to it.
Your ideas are definitely, clearly, and verifiable wrong
False. Don't be an idiot.
and the medieval policies you advocate
I have no such policies. You're lying again.
will lead to unfathomable human misery if enacted
That's ridiculous on the face of it. The policies I advocate would, at worst, return us to a time around the 1950s, where few people had insurance, and most everyone's medical needs were met. If you call that "unfathomable human misery" then you're just plain stupid.
You're the kind of man who gives America a bad name in the civilized world.
Any "world" that considers liberty a bad thing isn't very civilized.
Bush had 0.63 exemptions for every request received in 2008. Obama had 1.05 exemptions for every request received.
Could you elaborate on what those numbers mean? The way you wrote that it sounds like the Obama administration is exempting everything, and then about 1 out of 20 are exempted again just to be safe.
It's from the story. Obama (in 2009) got 444K requests, and issued 467K exemptions. Bush (in 2008) got 494K requests, and issued 313K exemptions. Note that a single request can get more than one exemption.
And I didn't say you said I was. YOU are the one jumping to conclusions here. Seriously.
You mean the ASSOCIATED PRESS article at Breitbart?
Funny how you seem to take so much pleasure in pointing that out
Another (false) assumption on your part. I took no pleasure in it whatsoever. Indeed, it was, on the contrary, a slight bit of exasperation, if there was any emotion at all.
while you made the same error I did
What error is that? I don't see any error I made...
Either your salary or your oxycodone prescription must be huge if you think it's not a problem to give legitimacy to right-wing propaganda outlets.
Defining media outlets you simply dislike as "propaganda outlets" is not convincing to anyone, other than people who are as closed-minded and hypocritical as you are.
Even if what you say might be true (that Obama's *percentage* of FOIA requests is no different than Bush's)
That's not what I said: his percentage of exemptions vs. requests is MUCH WORSE than Bush's was in 2008. Bush had 0.63 exemptions for every request received in 2008. Obama had 1.05 exemptions for every request received. That's much worse, on the face of it.
Slashdot Mirror
we have the wealth inequality of a banana republic?
False.
Slashdot should have linked to a neutral source of the AP story.
You have utterly failed to provide any reason why it matters.
You're equating legitimate, fact-based advocacy of a policies that will improve the standard of living of middle class in this country (the left), with the propaganda outlets of the right, who lie, cheat, distort, and photoshop fake crowds in order to convince average chumps that it's really in their best interest to transfer all the wealth in the country to a few hundred billionaires.
Wow. Almost all of that is lies. Bravo.
First, I can rattle off scores of lies by the left. The lie that the mandate is to protect the people who might not choose to have health insurance, in case they might need it (when in fact it's to make sure their money is put in the insurance system BECAUSE they likely won't need it, so other people can use it). The lie that people with insurance won't be forced to change it (the mandate does precisely that, forces people to change their insurance a few years down the road). The lie that the bill is "bipartisan" just because one Republican (in the House) voted for it.
And then there's your lie that it will improve the standrd of living for the middle class. In fact, the middle class mostly HAS health insurance that meets the minimum standards of the bill already, so this bill at best will not make a significant difference for the overwhelming majority of them.
It will make a significant difference for a very small number of people in the middle class who can't afford insurance now. But that's about it.
And it likely won't decrease the cost of their insurance (the CBO says premiums will continue to rise), so ... no help there either.
And finally -- because it's getting late, not because there's not more lies in there -- the "right" does not want to transfer money to billionaires, but, on the contrary, wants to implement policies to increase competition, lower costs, and have everyone keep more of their own money.
What's your stake in the game? Why would you advocate a point of view that will hurt you, your family, and all your friends?
Of course, I've already demonstrated it won't hurt the middle class, but even if you were right: some of us are not, like you, selfish. We advocate for what is good and right and just for everyone, not just what helps ourselves. I advocate for liberty, pure and simple, which is why an individual mandate -- which is the OPPOSITE of liberty -- is completely unacceptable to me.
Nobody here is rich enough to truly benefit from Republican policies
Nonsense. If the policies I want to see from the GOP were implemented, it would mean my insurance would cost a hell of a lot less (not to mention future college tuition for my kids, since the Democrats put in massive college subsidies in the health insurance reconciliation bill that will result in even higher costs for higher ed).
You really don't have any idea what you're talking about, I think. You just rattle off inane talking points and hope no one reads them who knows more than you. It's a vain hope, given how little you know.
Interestingly, social psychology studies have demonstrated atheists are in fact quite similar to the strongly religious.
I doubt it. What is likely shown is that zealots of ALL kinds share such common characteristics. Someone is a "personal atheist" who isn't trying to beat up people who disagree with him, is very different from the people that discussion was about: atheists who are trying to stick Christians' nose in poop.
The only truism regarding types of people and characteristics is that some people suck, and some people suck less, and it's entirely regardless of what beliefs or principles they have.
He would also be very comfortable with "separate but equal". He wants the right to practice racial discrimination. He calls it "rights of association".
Yes, that is fundamental to liberty.
I would not go to any place of business that racially discriminated, but everyone has that right. The government takes away that right. There's a fine argument to be made that this was necessary due to the government-backed racial discrimination (including slavery, of course) that infected our nation for many years (i.e., private race discrimination is heightened in both quantity and effect because of government actions), so I am not looking to overturn this policy any time soon. But true liberty is a fine goal to have, no?
Wow. I don't think I've ever met a person so in love with the sound of their own voice.
You're lying about me.
Are you really claiming that the NYT is as biased as Breitbart? Odd.
No, it's MORE biased than Breitbart.
Hope that clears it up for you.
Seriously, the editorial pages are at least as biased as Breitbart's, and the news coverage on NYT is MORE slanted, because while both have selection bias, the NYT actually writes its own stories, whereas Breitbart links to much more objective sources like the AP.
you adamantly insist that everything means what you say it means, without backing up your assertions with facts, logic, or even anecdotal evidence
I do have one thing you left out: the actual text of what was written, which backs me up entirely.
If it was AP content, there's no excuse linking to Breitbart, is there?
You say that as though there's something wrong with linking to Breitbart, which is the question-begging fallacy. No "excuse" is needed.
And yet you continue to argue without actually comprehending what I wrote.
False.
I did not jump to any conclusion... I reasoned the conlcusion based upon what you had wrote.
You jumped to conclusions based on incomplete data ... which is precisely what you said there is something "wrong" with doing.
Please show me the fault in my reasoning that makes my conclusion invalid.
Shrug. Simple. I had no assumption. I implied no assumption. Yet you said I had the assumption.
When the point you make hinges upon the claim made by that person, yes.
Wow. Even though OTHER PEOPLE had ALREADY replied to him that it was an AP story, I am in "error" if I don't make a reply to him saying the exact same thing?
That's the dumbest thing I've read all week, which is saying something, since I've been listening to Pelosi.
You're a liar.
No
Yes.
It is not lying to state what I believe to be the truth.
Nope. If you state something with a careless disregard for truth or falsity, that is also a lie.
I have yet to ever see you acknowledge an error, or the validity of a differing opinion, on slashdot.
So? Your tiny sample is meaningless, of course.
Instead I see you reduce yourself to playing semantics games to try and discredit the other person.
You're a liar.
I have seen you make specious arguments time and again to try and defend your posts against conflicting evidence.
You're a liar.
You have yet to "correct" me on either of my original claims -- namely, that incomplete evidence should not be used to jump to conclusions
I didn't correct you on that claim, but I did point out that YOU did that to ME: you jumped to conclusions by claiming that I assumed you were accusing me of jumping to conclusions.
and that Andrew Breitbart intentionally posts material on Breitbart.com to lead people along his political agenda.
You're a liar. That was not your claim, ever, let alone originally. You said THAT ARTICLE was INTENDED (meaning, the writing itself) for political purposes, not that articles in general are POSTED on the site for political purposes.
And in case you missed it, since I posted AC in another thread... yes, I do believe you're functionally retarded when it comes to debate
Considering all your lies, inconsistencies, and general incompetence -- still waiting for you to show where I argued a straw man! -- that's a meaningless belief.
Ok, so this is the point in the argument where I am forced to remind you of what you actually said.
False. I know exactly what I wrote.
Them: It is relevant. Breitbart is a political operative and completely biased.
False. That is not what was said by them.
the fact that it was printed there is relevant
False.
just like pointing out that something came from dailykos would be relevant
If it were original Breitbart content, you MIGHT have a point. As it was not, you do not. And even if it were original Breitbart content, unless you can point out biases in the story, it's still not relevant: it's just ad hominem.
I don't read dailykos much, but I've never read an original news story there, only opinion, and opinionated "news analysis," pieces. Breitbart is largely news articles, and largely from other sources. A very poor comparison.
It is always relevant to point out publication biases.
As it was AP content, not Breitbart content, you are arguing against yourself.
I've identified your problem
False.
Yes, I don't know. Obviously, everything we say has the caveat "if the numbers are accurate." That said, you're right that many of these exemptions could be on information requests over and above the ones received in 2009.
When I judge a site for bias, I like to look at the comments sections.
Then Slashdot should never again link to the New York Times.
You're ... using iffy semantics
False.
... to weasel
False.
I am not weaseling. It was my original point.
You do not consider Breitbart to be a political operative.
His WEB SITE is not a "political operative," nor is whether HE is a political operative related to everything (or even most things) published on his site.
The problem with your response is that you claimed the issues were different, when clearly they are the same issue
No, they are not. I was responding "false" to the claim that the breitbart web site is a "political operative."
The political operative in question was Breitbart
Fine. No more posts from Slate, Salon, Forbes, USN&WR, NYT, or any other media org that is run by a "political operative."
To say anything from Breitbart's web site shouldn't be printed because he has a political viewpoint is moronic.
He's not lying
False.
in that post series you do appear to hate atheists
False.
What conclusions have I jumped to?
You referred to "your assumption that I was saying that." But I had no such assumption as you falsely asserted. You jumped to conclusions.
Sorry, I jumped to conclusions there: I assumed you knew what you wrote. My bad.
Why would you write it if you took no pleasure in it?
To inform you of that which you seemed unaware of. Why else?
Your response to my post did not address the meaning of my post at all... it set up a straw man
False on both counts. You wrote, "the article at breitbart is intended to lead people who like to jump to conclusions that support their politics." I pointed out the fact that the Associated Press wrote the article, which certainly does address your meaning, because I think you'll have a hard time convincing anyone that the AP writes such articles to support their own politics.
And I set up no straw man at all. Perhaps you don't know what a "straw man" is? A straw man is creating an argument you didn't make, and then attacking it as though it were your own. What argument did I make up and attack as though it was yours, that wasn't yours? Be specific!
You allowed the original poster's claim that the piece was a Breitbart piece be left uncontested.
Um. So I should contest every claim everyone makes that is false? And if I don't, I am in error? That's utterly irrational, especially given that I never replied to him at all, and that other people had already informed him that it was an AP piece.
Whatever. I'm done arguing with you... it's pointless.
Yes, when someone is as irrational and wrong as you, arguing with me is pretty pointless.
you cannot allow any kind of differing opinion into your consciousness
You're a liar.
you will spend your time making specious arguments to try to discredit the arguments of those you disagree with
You're a liar.
Please just do me one favor
I already did: I corrected you on several points. But you couldn't even thank me for that, so why should I do more favors for you?
Those are your precise words.
Correct. However, you used those as evidence that I "hate atheists." Despite the fact that they don't say such a thing, either implicitly or explicitly.
So, why are you lying about me? Or are you just that stupid?
So are these
Only some of them (most of them are not mine, in fact). You quoted ... poorly.
I'm not misrepresenting you in the slightest.
When you said I hate atheists, you downright LIED about me.
You're an archetypal, callous, right-wing blowhard who sees failure as weakness, and life as being about strife, not cooperation and happiness.
False on all counts, except that I am a right-wing blowhard. I am certainly not archetypal, nor remotely callous. Strength can only be gained through failure. Life IS about strife, of course, but also about cooperation and happiness.
However, nothing I said demonstrates callousness, nor a lack of cooperation. You -- pathetically -- apparently believe that if I am against government forcing us to do something, I am therefore against it being done. This fallacy is old and stupid, but many people still cling to it.
Your ideas are definitely, clearly, and verifiable wrong
False. Don't be an idiot.
and the medieval policies you advocate
I have no such policies. You're lying again.
will lead to unfathomable human misery if enacted
That's ridiculous on the face of it. The policies I advocate would, at worst, return us to a time around the 1950s, where few people had insurance, and most everyone's medical needs were met. If you call that "unfathomable human misery" then you're just plain stupid.
You're the kind of man who gives America a bad name in the civilized world.
Any "world" that considers liberty a bad thing isn't very civilized.
That is the *EXACT* issue raised by the poster you responded to.
In fact, it's not.
Here, since you can't read, I'll help.
He said, "You're giving attention and ad revenue to a political operative."
Then the other poster said, "how is linking to Breitbart and not the AP story NOT giving money and attention to Breitbart?"
HTH. HAND.
Bush had 0.63 exemptions for every request received in 2008. Obama had 1.05 exemptions for every request received.
Could you elaborate on what those numbers mean? The way you wrote that it sounds like the Obama administration is exempting everything, and then about 1 out of 20 are exempted again just to be safe.
It's from the story. Obama (in 2009) got 444K requests, and issued 467K exemptions. Bush (in 2008) got 494K requests, and issued 313K exemptions. Note that a single request can get more than one exemption.
I wasn't jumping to conclusions.
I didn't say you were
And I didn't say you said I was. YOU are the one jumping to conclusions here. Seriously.
You mean the ASSOCIATED PRESS article at Breitbart?
Funny how you seem to take so much pleasure in pointing that out
Another (false) assumption on your part. I took no pleasure in it whatsoever. Indeed, it was, on the contrary, a slight bit of exasperation, if there was any emotion at all.
while you made the same error I did
What error is that? I don't see any error I made ...
Why do you hate atheists, pudge?
Why are you lying about me?
Wow! What cogent reasoning.
Shrug. I replied at the level of the original comment.
Seriously, though, how is linking to Breitbart and not the AP story NOT giving money and attention to Breitbart?
That isn't the issue. Try reading again.
Either your salary or your oxycodone prescription must be huge if you think it's not a problem to give legitimacy to right-wing propaganda outlets.
Defining media outlets you simply dislike as "propaganda outlets" is not convincing to anyone, other than people who are as closed-minded and hypocritical as you are.
Even if what you say might be true (that Obama's *percentage* of FOIA requests is no different than Bush's)
That's not what I said: his percentage of exemptions vs. requests is MUCH WORSE than Bush's was in 2008. Bush had 0.63 exemptions for every request received in 2008. Obama had 1.05 exemptions for every request received. That's much worse, on the face of it.
Damming indeed
Yes.
You disagree? Why?