"That's all very well, but that Archaeology article spends all it's time slamming the person, not discussing his claims"
No, there's an entire paragraph on why it's impossible.
BUT THAT WASN'T THE POINT OF THAT ARTICLE.
The point, which you obviously missed, was that in the search for new and amazing discoveries, the media
"ignores the truth and embraces the fantastic."
This article was an indictment of the media's behavior, not an ad hominem attack on the guy and his results.
"The pyramid announcement does seem very premature and is probably something else (or a fake) but I'd like to see some discussion of what he's found, which is not in that article."
IT WASN'T SUPPOSED TO BE. The article, AGAIN, was a critique of the behavior of the media, and their willingness to embrace "fringe" characters in an effort to report dramatic findings.
You completely missed the point, and yet SOMEHOW got modded up.
Nice retort. Especially when followed by this load of dung
"The administration's argument the entire time has been that they're violating FISA because they believe that it constrains the president's constitutional powers. (IOW, they're admitting to breaking federal law just like the previous poster has stated.)"
No, you pathtic tool, that is most certainly NOT what they are saying. They are contending that the law DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM. How you get "breaking the law" out of "does not apply" I have no idea, but you can't just wave your idiot AC hand and make one into the other.
It is illegal for 17 year olds to smoke. Does that mean that adults are breaking the law when they smoke?
No, you fucking piece of garbage, it means the law DOES NOT APPPLY TO THEM.
Now whether that is true in this case or not, THAT is the crux of the issue.
I understand why you posted AC. I'm sure if I was as grossly misinformed as you, I'd try to prevent people from discovering it too.
So, apart from your very poor attempt to turn "does not apply" into "breaking the law" and broadcasting your ignorance in a public forum, what have you accomplished?
"I will assume any response by you other than an unequivocated mea culpa is just more childish drivel empoyed in a ridiculous attempt to save face."
And, amazingly, you responded exaclty how I said you would. You proved everything I said.
So, I was correct. You couldn't admit you were wrong, so you attacked. I imagine that apart from temper tantrums, that's the sum total of your rhetorical toolbox.
"It proved your point wrong."
In fact, the very idea that you had to look it up AFTER acting as though you knew what it meant demonstrates how far off the mark you were.
"okay, I've whopped ya ass. I'll give you one more chance to walk away" is so funny that I can't stop laughing."
And yet, again I'm right and you're not.
I wouldn't find it funny if I were getting repeatedly proven wrong like you are, and had to resort to to tactics you have.
As I said. mea culp or attack. I guess you think saying the last thing makes it true, but in reality it only leaves the readers of your post with the distinct idea that you're too pathetic and cowardly to admit all the things you got wrong.
So, prove me right and attack again. Assign more points to me that I never made. Make statements of "fact" that aren't fact at all, and resort to childish antics because you've never learned how to debate correctly.
Or, you could just cut and paste your last post and do it all in one fell swoop.
But I wasn't really talking to you. I am aware of the laws in question, as well as the legal arguments.
My issue with GP related to the all too common tendency around here to run off at the mouth about this issue without ever having read any of the associated case law or documentation.
I love though, that when I ask someone to identify the source of their argument, I get a huffy response.
You're one of those childish people who listen to the people in their dorm, and read the daily kos, and think they're informed.
Then, when asked to provide SPECIFICALLY the information used in drawing their conclusions, they do what you've done. Dodge the issue, in an attempt to draw attention from the fact that they've never bothered to check and see if what they've been told is accurate.
And you did it agian, and we all know why.
You;ve never followed any of it up. That's why your response to the law that was broken was "FISA..snide comment". Because you've never bothered to actually read it, and educate yourself on the legal issues.
As far as hating the president, who gives a fuck? Hate away.
But don't act like you have facts on your side when it's pretty clear by now that you haven't examined them.
How dare you act as though you're informed on this topic? When asked to cite a specific point that ANYONE who IS informed on this topic could easily locate, you respond with insults and hot air.
And by the way, the reason I'm asking is because I DO know the answer, and I expect if you and people liek you are going to run their mouths that they engag in at least a cursory level of research first.
Thanks for signing your post. I appreciate knowing who I'm talking to.
"So as long as you never hold Bush accountable..."
WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT BUSH? Why is it that the only response you think was worth posting is a pathetic equivocation?
Is it perhaps possible that what I said applies equally to ALL my elected representatives regardless of their political leanings?
I am so tired of people like you posting garbage like you did, as though refuting one type of bad behavior is possible by drawing attention to another.
I expect accountability from ALL of my representatives. I have never said nor done anything that suggests otherwise.
Now explain why the best response you could come up with is the same one 4 year olds rely on when caught? Explain why you addressed my comment about accountability by name calling and irrationally attacking me?
Or did that "simpering Democrat apologist" comment strike a little too close to home, and make you feel the need to lash out in order to draw attention from how accurate it is?
"So give them the proper documentation to become legal residents. Problem solved"
No, problem not solved, because that's not the problem. The problem is that people like you don't hold them accountable when they come here illegally. Giving them amnesty (like Reagan did) just leads to more illegals.
Why not give them the opportunity to leave, re-apply for a visa, and FOLLOW THE FUCKING RULES?
Oh wait, that's got to be racist somehow...
"that the people who are here illegally are essential to the nation's economy"
And now we've reached the big lie. Just because you're too easily manipulated by rhetoric to recognize an obvious fallacy when you see it is no reason to assume others are as ignorant.
They ARE NOT essential to the economy. They simply make things cheaper. PERIOD. Without them, the price of certain goods would go up. BFD, stop changing "cheap lettuce" into "essential to the economy".
"Hard as you try, you can't just wish them away."
Strangely enough, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU SUGGESTED. Giving them "proper documentation" doesn't SOLVE anything, it only postpones the decision until more immigrants come here and need to be given "proper documentation".
"they're people just like you and me."
NO, THEY ARE NOT. I HAVE NEVER INTENTIONALLY FLOUTED THE LAW IN AN ATTEMPT TO LIVE ILLEGALLY IN A COUNRTY.
They are here illegally. They are here illegally. One last time because you don't want to admit it, THEY CHOSE TO BREAK THE LAW IN AN EFFORT TO LIVE HERE. They have already demonstrated overt disregard for the law of the land.
Why do you want to reward them for that.
And as an aside, no I have neither jaywalked (because it's not illegal here) no sped. So try arguing your point without red herrings to fall back on.
I know it's hard for you to admit you've been manipulated, and because of that, it's hard for you to back off an obviously wrong position.
But until you address that the very people you want to give legal status chose to come here illegally, while MANY others have waited their turn, you have NO argument. NONE.
That's not specific. Please cite the EXACT law, and give a link to whenre you think the administration admitted breaking a federal law.
And please, I've read FISA. If you plan to respond with that, back it up with more than a snide comment.
"They're claiming the Constitutional authority that the President can pretty much do whatever he wants."
That's incorrect, and a grossly simplistic assessment of the arguments involved.
Please cite the SPECIFIC law (statute number, and preferably a link) as well as a quote that show the administration admitted they broke a federal law.
Or are you another lying, disingenuous slashtroll who thinks that blindly asserting things that the majority around here agree with is sufficient, and actually researching something before you make claims about it is unnecessary?
Because so far, all you've done is make assertions and call names, despite the only thing being asked for is a specific citation of the federal law you claim the administration admitted breaking.
Frankly, I know what you are, and so does evryone else. Do me a favor, and respond with more unsubstantiated assertions and name calling so that the slower ones can see it too.
"Have you jaywalked lately? Broken the speed limit? Then you're a criminal too."
Yay, what's your point? That because CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES commit crimes that we should overlook the NONCITIZENS when they commit crimes?
Because that's an idiotic position any way you look at it.
"Being in U.S. territory without documentation still isn't a felony, last I checked."
So? What point did you think you made here? It's still illegal. SO unless your point is that you have a dire need of rhetoric classes, you failed to make it.
I'm so tired of limp wristed apologists like you spouting off garbage about immigrants while totally ignoring that the illegal ones BROKE THE LAW.
The rest of your argument is totally irrelevant until that FACT is dealt with.
And really, why is it that people like you simply aren't intelligent enough to realize that if they come here illegally and you REWARD them with amnesty/semi-legality, that is AN INCENTIVE for them to break the law.
God, I wish you and your ilk would smarten up and stop allowing yourselves to be so easily manipulated. All it takes is a few epithets, someone shouting "civil rights" and someone esle shouting "racism" and you completely ignore reason in favor of blind emotionalism.
Why are you allowing yourself to be manipulated? Why aren't you smart enough to understand when you're being played?
No seriously, fuck you. I am so tired of disingenuous garbage from people like you.
"His sworn testimony regarding something that was nobody's business"
Bullshit. He was on the job, and while he's on the job he answers to the people. P-E-R-I-O-D. Don't bother replying to that, it's unassailable fact, and you'll just sound like a bigger asshole if you try.
YOU may be ok with him lying about his behavior while in the employ of the people, but I'm not. I expect my elected representatives to do their fucking jobs, and answer when held accountable.
The reson you disagree is that you're a simpering Democrat apologist, and you know it.
"Well, let's see: you used quotes. You replied to my post. And you implied that you were refuting my arguments, even though you had made up your own. Can you not see it from my POV?"
Yes, you're a an arrogant asshole, who is too tied up in himself to actually think about how ignorant his statement is.
IF YOU NEVER SAID IT, THEN HOW COULD I POSSIBLY QUOTE YOU? Right. I won't do that stupid "apology accepted" thing you did, because I'm not a jackass.
And this
"Your implicit assumption that opposing viewpoints do NOT belong in a given article is downright scary."
Never said that nor implied it, but based on the elementary level reasoning you've displayed so far, I can see how you got here.
Do me a favor, unless I EXPLICITY state something, don't assign it to me. Is that simple enough for you? I realize you're out of your depth here, but my being smarter and more informed is no reason to rely on childish banter like "apology accepted" and straw men.
You should try to rise above your obvious intellectual inferiority and accept that my points are stronger, more reasoned, and more accurate than yours.
I'm sure it's not the first time you've failed to win a debate. In fact I can guess it's not the first time today (since I've wiped the floor with you repeatedly already).
I will assume any response by you other than an unequivocated mea culpa is just more childish drivel empoyed in a ridiculous attempt to save face. Since that was the entire sum of your current post, I dare say that I am already correct.
I look forward to your admissions of failure. I only hope that now that you've seen for certain that you lack the intelligence and debate savvy necessary to intelligently discuss these issues, that you'll strive to do better and avoid making a fool of yourself again.
It's ok to be wrong. I would think that you would be used to it by now, so why fight so hard when it's obvious to everyone but you?
"First of all, I don't appreciate your assumption that all disagreement must stem from my misunderstanding. It's arrogant, disingenuous, and doesn't further a good debate."
And yet, completely accurate. I'm sorry that my drawing attention to your misunderstanding upsets you, so I suggest that in the future, you do a better job of trying to understand. It will help you avoid cases like the current one, where only your gross, intentional, misunderstanding of what I wrote is causing you problems.
"I think if there are overwhelming facts supporting a case, good reporting means saying just that, not keeping an open mind and giving equal time both to the overwhelming facts and to the fringe speculation."
Point to the exact quote where I suggested anything otherwise. You are adding things to my post in an attempt to find something to argue about, that is a straw man, and you need to stop. I never claimed that giving "fringe speculation" equal time is desirable, nor did I suggest anything of the kind. You are lying, and that is pathetic. Stop assigning points to my argument that I never made, especially since you blather about "..disingenuous..." as though you doing it in response to your lack of ability to comprehend the difficult reasoning in my post is any excuse.
"P.S. just to illustrate my first point, I could have said "feel free to clarify your earlier misstatements."
Except I didn't misstate anything, I simply stated something in a way that was clearly beyond your meager ability to comprehend. It's only a misstatment if I actually state something incorrectly. Since I was totally accurate, and it was your lack of reading comprehension and cognitive ability that was at fault, if you were to say something about clarifying my "misstatements" it would simply be more eivdence that your ignorance and lack of verbal aptitude are the cause of your ridiculous response.
Please stop blaming others because you lack the intelligence and skills to discuss a difficult subject. More education and practice on your part is the answer, not unfounded assertions based on ignorance.
"Maybe the idea is to just assume that the mother has an STD. (now THAT is really offensive too)"
She probably does. From wiki
"HPV is by far the most common sexually transmitted infection. It is said to be the cause of 99% of both cervical and prostate cancers. It is estimated that 80% of sexually active adults have been infected with one or more genital HPV strains at some time.[1]"
Read that over, until the smug look disappears from your face.
MOST people have been infected with an STD of they're sexually active, if not HPV, then Herpes.
I don't know why people like you are so arrogant when they openly advertise their ignorance like you did.
His point, I assume, is that you engage in ad hominem attacks, most probably due to a lack of supporting evidence.
So, since I've not given my opinion on the subject one way or another, let's see what your response is.
Are you going to call ME a racist shitbag too? Or are you going to support your assertions with more that "I disagree, so I'll start throwing around epithets and ad hominem attacks"?
Here's the real point. Immigrants may not be receiving the necessary vaccinations. This may be due to several factors, but ultimately there needs to be attention drawn to this fact. If there are a high number of immigrants without vaccination, that is a health risk that needs to be examined.
Now, proceed to call me a racist shitbag, even though I said IMMIGRANTS, not a particular race, and gave no indication about which groups of immigrants I was discussing.
"Do measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccines contain thimerosal?
No, MMR vaccine does not and never did contain thimerosal. Varicella (chickenpox), inactivated polio (IPV), and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines have also never contained thimerosal."
MMR never had thimerosal in it. If parents are refusing to vaccinate their kids because of a fear of something that was never present, what's wrong with countering their intentional ignorace with derision.
"That that extra 50% is being collected primarily from the poor and middle class and simply being given to the weathiest and shipped out of the country?"
Now you are backpedaling. I spent much too much time dealing with someone just like you yesterday, someone who continually revises their previous assertions when demonstrated to be wrong.
"No, I was correct."
No, you were not. It is impossible for your (first) statement to be correct. I will not waste another second refuting the argument of someone who debates by changing their assertions when disproven.
"Shouldn't honest reporting be about presenting facts?"
Yes, what did you misunderstand that makes you think I disagree?
"Shouldn't a journalist be asked to evaluate the quality of information they're getting and decide what's credible enough to report?"
Yes, what did you misunderstand that makes you think I disagree?
"Why is it good enough to simply repeat what both sides say (or just one side, or whatever) rather than trying to find out what's really going on?"
Where did I suggest otherwise? You seem to be reading something into my post that doesn't exist. Please wuote the exact statement that makes you think am against trying to find out "what is really going on"?
"NPOV does not mean "give equal treatment to all viewpoints".
Where exactly did I say that it did?"
Ok Mr. I like to accuse others of using logical fallacies while using one myself. WHERE DID I ATTRIBUTE THAT STATEMENT TO YOU?
Right.
However, this little gem
"Where do you get off deleting opposing points of view?"
Justifies MY statement quite nicely. Your assumption that opposing viewpoints belong in an article is the explanation for MY statement. I'm sorry if you didn't understand it, but you should have asked instead of tossing around a logical fallacy in your attempt to disprove the "fallacy" you mistakenly thought I made.
The rest of your post is just restating what I have already refuted. I ahve no will or reason to refute you again. If you are incapable of understanding why you are wrong, read the link. They do a much better job of explaining why all of your assertions aren't appropriate for the article.
You clearly DO NOT undertsand what NPOV means. I won't waste any more time trying to help you educate yourself.
"It has crushed suppliers into a no-win situations.
Absolutely, unequivocally opinion, with "crushed" and "no-win situations" being unacceptable POV. Biased and opinion."
Right there. Calling it a no-win situation is an opinion. Did you not bother to read the post?
"Without reference, stating that something is POV is POV."
You need to look up what POV means. I think maybe you have no idea what we're talking about.
"Your VERY in "VERY POV" is opinion too, no?"
So the fuck what? Where did I ever claim MY POST wasn't going to be POV? What the fuck did you think you were adding to the conversation by making an observation that EVERYONE ELSE understood already? Seriously, did you think that was an insight? IT WS SUPPOSED TO BE POV. And it doesn't mean it's wrong.
MY point, which you clearly didn't bother to even attempt to comprehend, is that the original poster made several claims of "fact" that were not fact but opinion. You disagree. I showed you (twice now) that I was right and you are not.
Where in my post did you think I wrote anything about my obaervations not being my observations? What on earth made you think otherwise?
And as you have demonstrated, bias is something that is not easily quantified.
For example
"In this case, Wal-Mart has indeed made a policy of annihilating unions, shutting down entire stores to do so."
In this statement, "annihilating" is POV. Biased.
"It has crushed suppliers into a no-win situations."
Absolutely, unequivocally opinion, with "crushed" and "no-win situations" being unacceptable POV. Biased and opinion.
"It has dropped wages overall."
What does "overall" mean?
"It has pumped manufacturing overseas."
Why use "pumped" which, while not demonstrably negative in connotation, does invoke a feeling of negativity, such as in "pump and dump" stock schemes (although, it could refer to sorority houses just as easily...)
"It has passed health care costs onto the taxpayers."
Opinion. You are using creative econiomics and semantic games to describe behavior that you disagree with. POV.
"These are things that are real."
Perhaps
"They are not opinions."
I've shown that some of them most certainly are opinions.
More importantly, it's not always about what you say, but how you say it.
For example instead of
"It has crushed suppliers into a no-win situations."
The statement
"Wal-Mart has a policy of price negotiation, that sometimes causes suppliers to sell..."
One is VERY POV, and totally opinion and unacceptable. The other is (hopefully, I admit I miss it sometimes too) not POV, and describes facts.
Lastly, I took serious issue with this
"an open mind in the face of overwhelming fact is willful refusal to pass judgement, not a lack of bias."
No, it is reporting. Reporting is not the injection of your assessment of whther something is supported by overwhelming fact. That is editorializing, and you suggestion that it is the correct way to approach journalism is ludicrous.
"When Wal-Mart moves in, the people in the community undercut all the local businesses by buying from Wal-Mart when they sell at a loss, driving them out of business"
I added the parts that you intentionally left out, in order to demonize Wal-Mart.
As has happened in MANY MANY other places, small businesses can and do stay viable while competing with Wal-Mart. They simply have to offer some extra value to go along with the higher prices.
If people really agreed with you, they would support the mom and pop businesses with their money. They don't, and that should tell you how they feel about what you think.
You are blaming a company for providing a product that the people in the community want. It is not the fault of the company, it is the fault of the population of that town.
Slashdot Mirror
"That's all very well, but that Archaeology article spends all it's time slamming the person, not discussing his claims"
No, there's an entire paragraph on why it's impossible.
BUT THAT WASN'T THE POINT OF THAT ARTICLE.
The point, which you obviously missed, was that in the search for new and amazing discoveries, the media
"ignores the truth and embraces the fantastic."
This article was an indictment of the media's behavior, not an ad hominem attack on the guy and his results.
"The pyramid announcement does seem very premature and is probably something else (or a fake) but I'd like to see some discussion of what he's found, which is not in that article."
IT WASN'T SUPPOSED TO BE. The article, AGAIN, was a critique of the behavior of the media, and their willingness to embrace "fringe" characters in an effort to report dramatic findings.
You completely missed the point, and yet SOMEHOW got modded up.
That you cahnged the subject.
How is it people like you, when confronted with facts that directly contradict their statements, resort to changing the subject?
I showed you why you were wrong. Own up, or shut up. I'll take either, but no more rambling half-coherent posts in response please.
"You're an idiot."
Nice retort. Especially when followed by this load of dung
"The administration's argument the entire time has been that they're violating FISA because they believe that it constrains the president's constitutional powers. (IOW, they're admitting to breaking federal law just like the previous poster has stated.)"
No, you pathtic tool, that is most certainly NOT what they are saying. They are contending that the law DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM. How you get "breaking the law" out of "does not apply" I have no idea, but you can't just wave your idiot AC hand and make one into the other.
It is illegal for 17 year olds to smoke. Does that mean that adults are breaking the law when they smoke?
No, you fucking piece of garbage, it means the law DOES NOT APPPLY TO THEM.
Now whether that is true in this case or not, THAT is the crux of the issue.
I understand why you posted AC. I'm sure if I was as grossly misinformed as you, I'd try to prevent people from discovering it too.
So, apart from your very poor attempt to turn "does not apply" into "breaking the law" and broadcasting your ignorance in a public forum, what have you accomplished?
I said this before
"I will assume any response by you other than an unequivocated mea culpa is just more childish drivel empoyed in a ridiculous attempt to save face."
And, amazingly, you responded exaclty how I said you would. You proved everything I said.
So, I was correct. You couldn't admit you were wrong, so you attacked. I imagine that apart from temper tantrums, that's the sum total of your rhetorical toolbox.
"It proved your point wrong."
In fact, the very idea that you had to look it up AFTER acting as though you knew what it meant demonstrates how far off the mark you were.
"okay, I've whopped ya ass. I'll give you one more chance to walk away" is so funny that I can't stop laughing."
And yet, again I'm right and you're not.
I wouldn't find it funny if I were getting repeatedly proven wrong like you are, and had to resort to to tactics you have.
As I said. mea culp or attack. I guess you think saying the last thing makes it true, but in reality it only leaves the readers of your post with the distinct idea that you're too pathetic and cowardly to admit all the things you got wrong.
So, prove me right and attack again. Assign more points to me that I never made. Make statements of "fact" that aren't fact at all, and resort to childish antics because you've never learned how to debate correctly.
Or, you could just cut and paste your last post and do it all in one fell swoop.
But I wasn't really talking to you. I am aware of the laws in question, as well as the legal arguments.
My issue with GP related to the all too common tendency around here to run off at the mouth about this issue without ever having read any of the associated case law or documentation.
I love though, that when I ask someone to identify the source of their argument, I get a huffy response.
You said "admitted breaking federal law". So one quote, or an admission that you were lying.
Nothing else please, I have no desire to read any more of your insults, particularly when you have yet to support a single point you've made.
One quote, or one admission that you were lying. NOTHING ELSE, please.
You're one of those childish people who listen to the people in their dorm, and read the daily kos, and think they're informed.
Then, when asked to provide SPECIFICALLY the information used in drawing their conclusions, they do what you've done. Dodge the issue, in an attempt to draw attention from the fact that they've never bothered to check and see if what they've been told is accurate.
And you did it agian, and we all know why.
You;ve never followed any of it up. That's why your response to the law that was broken was "FISA..snide comment". Because you've never bothered to actually read it, and educate yourself on the legal issues.
As far as hating the president, who gives a fuck? Hate away.
But don't act like you have facts on your side when it's pretty clear by now that you haven't examined them.
How dare you act as though you're informed on this topic? When asked to cite a specific point that ANYONE who IS informed on this topic could easily locate, you respond with insults and hot air.
And by the way, the reason I'm asking is because I DO know the answer, and I expect if you and people liek you are going to run their mouths that they engag in at least a cursory level of research first.
"Asshole."
Thanks for signing your post. I appreciate knowing who I'm talking to.
"So as long as you never hold Bush accountable..."
WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT BUSH? Why is it that the only response you think was worth posting is a pathetic equivocation?
Is it perhaps possible that what I said applies equally to ALL my elected representatives regardless of their political leanings?
I am so tired of people like you posting garbage like you did, as though refuting one type of bad behavior is possible by drawing attention to another.
I expect accountability from ALL of my representatives. I have never said nor done anything that suggests otherwise.
Now explain why the best response you could come up with is the same one 4 year olds rely on when caught? Explain why you addressed my comment about accountability by name calling and irrationally attacking me?
Or did that "simpering Democrat apologist" comment strike a little too close to home, and make you feel the need to lash out in order to draw attention from how accurate it is?
"So give them the proper documentation to become legal residents. Problem solved"
No, problem not solved, because that's not the problem. The problem is that people like you don't hold them accountable when they come here illegally. Giving them amnesty (like Reagan did) just leads to more illegals.
Why not give them the opportunity to leave, re-apply for a visa, and FOLLOW THE FUCKING RULES?
Oh wait, that's got to be racist somehow...
"that the people who are here illegally are essential to the nation's economy"
And now we've reached the big lie. Just because you're too easily manipulated by rhetoric to recognize an obvious fallacy when you see it is no reason to assume others are as ignorant.
They ARE NOT essential to the economy. They simply make things cheaper. PERIOD. Without them, the price of certain goods would go up. BFD, stop changing "cheap lettuce" into "essential to the economy".
"Hard as you try, you can't just wish them away."
Strangely enough, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU SUGGESTED. Giving them "proper documentation" doesn't SOLVE anything, it only postpones the decision until more immigrants come here and need to be given "proper documentation".
"they're people just like you and me."
NO, THEY ARE NOT. I HAVE NEVER INTENTIONALLY FLOUTED THE LAW IN AN ATTEMPT TO LIVE ILLEGALLY IN A COUNRTY.
They are here illegally. They are here illegally. One last time because you don't want to admit it, THEY CHOSE TO BREAK THE LAW IN AN EFFORT TO LIVE HERE. They have already demonstrated overt disregard for the law of the land.
Why do you want to reward them for that.
And as an aside, no I have neither jaywalked (because it's not illegal here) no sped. So try arguing your point without red herrings to fall back on.
I know it's hard for you to admit you've been manipulated, and because of that, it's hard for you to back off an obviously wrong position.
But until you address that the very people you want to give legal status chose to come here illegally, while MANY others have waited their turn, you have NO argument. NONE.
"FISA. Do you really not know this?"
That's not specific. Please cite the EXACT law, and give a link to whenre you think the administration admitted breaking a federal law.
And please, I've read FISA. If you plan to respond with that, back it up with more than a snide comment.
"They're claiming the Constitutional authority that the President can pretty much do whatever he wants."
That's incorrect, and a grossly simplistic assessment of the arguments involved.
Please cite the SPECIFIC law (statute number, and preferably a link) as well as a quote that show the administration admitted they broke a federal law.
Or are you another lying, disingenuous slashtroll who thinks that blindly asserting things that the majority around here agree with is sufficient, and actually researching something before you make claims about it is unnecessary?
Because so far, all you've done is make assertions and call names, despite the only thing being asked for is a specific citation of the federal law you claim the administration admitted breaking.
Frankly, I know what you are, and so does evryone else. Do me a favor, and respond with more unsubstantiated assertions and name calling so that the slower ones can see it too.
"Have you jaywalked lately? Broken the speed limit? Then you're a criminal too."
Yay, what's your point? That because CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES commit crimes that we should overlook the NONCITIZENS when they commit crimes?
Because that's an idiotic position any way you look at it.
"Being in U.S. territory without documentation still isn't a felony, last I checked."
So? What point did you think you made here? It's still illegal. SO unless your point is that you have a dire need of rhetoric classes, you failed to make it.
I'm so tired of limp wristed apologists like you spouting off garbage about immigrants while totally ignoring that the illegal ones BROKE THE LAW.
The rest of your argument is totally irrelevant until that FACT is dealt with.
And really, why is it that people like you simply aren't intelligent enough to realize that if they come here illegally and you REWARD them with amnesty/semi-legality, that is AN INCENTIVE for them to break the law.
God, I wish you and your ilk would smarten up and stop allowing yourselves to be so easily manipulated. All it takes is a few epithets, someone shouting "civil rights" and someone esle shouting "racism" and you completely ignore reason in favor of blind emotionalism.
Why are you allowing yourself to be manipulated? Why aren't you smart enough to understand when you're being played?
No seriously, fuck you. I am so tired of disingenuous garbage from people like you.
"His sworn testimony regarding something that was nobody's business"
Bullshit. He was on the job, and while he's on the job he answers to the people. P-E-R-I-O-D. Don't bother replying to that, it's unassailable fact, and you'll just sound like a bigger asshole if you try.
YOU may be ok with him lying about his behavior while in the employ of the people, but I'm not. I expect my elected representatives to do their fucking jobs, and answer when held accountable.
The reson you disagree is that you're a simpering Democrat apologist, and you know it.
"Even the administration has admitted that Bush violated federal law in the warantless NSA wiretapping."
Please link to that admission, I'd love to read it.
You're one of those
Well, let me ask then
"Well, let's see: you used quotes. You replied to my post. And you implied that you were refuting my arguments, even though you had made up your own. Can you not see it from my POV?"
Yes, you're a an arrogant asshole, who is too tied up in himself to actually think about how ignorant his statement is.
IF YOU NEVER SAID IT, THEN HOW COULD I POSSIBLY QUOTE YOU? Right. I won't do that stupid "apology accepted" thing you did, because I'm not a jackass.
And this
"Your implicit assumption that opposing viewpoints do NOT belong in a given article is downright scary."
Never said that nor implied it, but based on the elementary level reasoning you've displayed so far, I can see how you got here.
Do me a favor, unless I EXPLICITY state something, don't assign it to me. Is that simple enough for you? I realize you're out of your depth here, but my being smarter and more informed is no reason to rely on childish banter like "apology accepted" and straw men.
You should try to rise above your obvious intellectual inferiority and accept that my points are stronger, more reasoned, and more accurate than yours.
I'm sure it's not the first time you've failed to win a debate. In fact I can guess it's not the first time today (since I've wiped the floor with you repeatedly already).
I will assume any response by you other than an unequivocated mea culpa is just more childish drivel empoyed in a ridiculous attempt to save face. Since that was the entire sum of your current post, I dare say that I am already correct.
I look forward to your admissions of failure. I only hope that now that you've seen for certain that you lack the intelligence and debate savvy necessary to intelligently discuss these issues, that you'll strive to do better and avoid making a fool of yourself again.
It's ok to be wrong. I would think that you would be used to it by now, so why fight so hard when it's obvious to everyone but you?
"First of all, I don't appreciate your assumption that all disagreement must stem from my misunderstanding. It's arrogant, disingenuous, and doesn't further a good debate."
And yet, completely accurate. I'm sorry that my drawing attention to your misunderstanding upsets you, so I suggest that in the future, you do a better job of trying to understand. It will help you avoid cases like the current one, where only your gross, intentional, misunderstanding of what I wrote is causing you problems.
"I think if there are overwhelming facts supporting a case, good reporting means saying just that, not keeping an open mind and giving equal time both to the overwhelming facts and to the fringe speculation."
Point to the exact quote where I suggested anything otherwise. You are adding things to my post in an attempt to find something to argue about, that is a straw man, and you need to stop. I never claimed that giving "fringe speculation" equal time is desirable, nor did I suggest anything of the kind. You are lying, and that is pathetic. Stop assigning points to my argument that I never made, especially since you blather about "..disingenuous..." as though you doing it in response to your lack of ability to comprehend the difficult reasoning in my post is any excuse.
"P.S. just to illustrate my first point, I could have said "feel free to clarify your earlier misstatements."
Except I didn't misstate anything, I simply stated something in a way that was clearly beyond your meager ability to comprehend. It's only a misstatment if I actually state something incorrectly. Since I was totally accurate, and it was your lack of reading comprehension and cognitive ability that was at fault, if you were to say something about clarifying my "misstatements" it would simply be more eivdence that your ignorance and lack of verbal aptitude are the cause of your ridiculous response.
Please stop blaming others because you lack the intelligence and skills to discuss a difficult subject. More education and practice on your part is the answer, not unfounded assertions based on ignorance.
"Maybe the idea is to just assume that the mother has an STD. (now THAT is really offensive too)"
She probably does. From wiki
"HPV is by far the most common sexually transmitted infection. It is said to be the cause of 99% of both cervical and prostate cancers. It is estimated that 80% of sexually active adults have been infected with one or more genital HPV strains at some time.[1]"
Read that over, until the smug look disappears from your face.
MOST people have been infected with an STD of they're sexually active, if not HPV, then Herpes.
I don't know why people like you are so arrogant when they openly advertise their ignorance like you did.
Justify it to yourself any way you like, there are immigration laws and if they are here illegally, they broke them.
Please stop suggesting appeasement is the answer. Until the fact that these people are here ILLEGALLY is addreseed, they deserve nothing.
"So what's your point again, you racist shitbag?"
His point, I assume, is that you engage in ad hominem attacks, most probably due to a lack of supporting evidence.
So, since I've not given my opinion on the subject one way or another, let's see what your response is.
Are you going to call ME a racist shitbag too? Or are you going to support your assertions with more that "I disagree, so I'll start throwing around epithets and ad hominem attacks"?
Here's the real point. Immigrants may not be receiving the necessary vaccinations. This may be due to several factors, but ultimately there needs to be attention drawn to this fact. If there are a high number of immigrants without vaccination, that is a health risk that needs to be examined.
Now, proceed to call me a racist shitbag, even though I said IMMIGRANTS, not a particular race, and gave no indication about which groups of immigrants I was discussing.
From the CDC
"Do measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccines contain thimerosal?
No, MMR vaccine does not and never did contain thimerosal. Varicella (chickenpox), inactivated polio (IPV), and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines have also never contained thimerosal."
MMR never had thimerosal in it. If parents are refusing to vaccinate their kids because of a fear of something that was never present, what's wrong with countering their intentional ignorace with derision.
You said this
"That that extra 50% is being collected primarily from the poor and middle class and simply being given to the weathiest and shipped out of the country?"
Now you are backpedaling. I spent much too much time dealing with someone just like you yesterday, someone who continually revises their previous assertions when demonstrated to be wrong.
"No, I was correct."
No, you were not. It is impossible for your (first) statement to be correct. I will not waste another second refuting the argument of someone who debates by changing their assertions when disproven.
"Shouldn't honest reporting be about presenting facts?"
Yes, what did you misunderstand that makes you think I disagree?
"Shouldn't a journalist be asked to evaluate the quality of information they're getting and decide what's credible enough to report?"
Yes, what did you misunderstand that makes you think I disagree?
"Why is it good enough to simply repeat what both sides say (or just one side, or whatever) rather than trying to find out what's really going on?"
Where did I suggest otherwise? You seem to be reading something into my post that doesn't exist. Please wuote the exact statement that makes you think am against trying to find out "what is really going on"?
"NPOV does not mean "give equal treatment to all viewpoints".
Where exactly did I say that it did?"
Ok Mr. I like to accuse others of using logical fallacies while using one myself. WHERE DID I ATTRIBUTE THAT STATEMENT TO YOU?
Right.
However, this little gem
"Where do you get off deleting opposing points of view?"
Justifies MY statement quite nicely. Your assumption that opposing viewpoints belong in an article is the explanation for MY statement. I'm sorry if you didn't understand it, but you should have asked instead of tossing around a logical fallacy in your attempt to disprove the "fallacy" you mistakenly thought I made.
The rest of your post is just restating what I have already refuted. I ahve no will or reason to refute you again. If you are incapable of understanding why you are wrong, read the link. They do a much better job of explaining why all of your assertions aren't appropriate for the article.
You clearly DO NOT undertsand what NPOV means. I won't waste any more time trying to help you educate yourself.
"It has crushed suppliers into a no-win situations.
Absolutely, unequivocally opinion, with "crushed" and "no-win situations" being unacceptable POV. Biased and opinion."
Right there. Calling it a no-win situation is an opinion. Did you not bother to read the post?
"Without reference, stating that something is POV is POV."
You need to look up what POV means. I think maybe you have no idea what we're talking about.
"Your VERY in "VERY POV" is opinion too, no?"
So the fuck what? Where did I ever claim MY POST wasn't going to be POV? What the fuck did you think you were adding to the conversation by making an observation that EVERYONE ELSE understood already? Seriously, did you think that was an insight? IT WS SUPPOSED TO BE POV. And it doesn't mean it's wrong.
MY point, which you clearly didn't bother to even attempt to comprehend, is that the original poster made several claims of "fact" that were not fact but opinion. You disagree. I showed you (twice now) that I was right and you are not.
Where in my post did you think I wrote anything about my obaervations not being my observations? What on earth made you think otherwise?
And as you have demonstrated, bias is something that is not easily quantified.
..."
For example
"In this case, Wal-Mart has indeed made a policy of annihilating unions, shutting down entire stores to do so."
In this statement, "annihilating" is POV. Biased.
"It has crushed suppliers into a no-win situations."
Absolutely, unequivocally opinion, with "crushed" and "no-win situations" being unacceptable POV. Biased and opinion.
"It has dropped wages overall."
What does "overall" mean?
"It has pumped manufacturing overseas."
Why use "pumped" which, while not demonstrably negative in connotation, does invoke a feeling of negativity, such as in "pump and dump" stock schemes (although, it could refer to sorority houses just as easily...)
"It has passed health care costs onto the taxpayers."
Opinion. You are using creative econiomics and semantic games to describe behavior that you disagree with. POV.
"These are things that are real."
Perhaps
"They are not opinions."
I've shown that some of them most certainly are opinions.
More importantly, it's not always about what you say, but how you say it.
For example instead of
"It has crushed suppliers into a no-win situations."
The statement
"Wal-Mart has a policy of price negotiation, that sometimes causes suppliers to sell
One is VERY POV, and totally opinion and unacceptable. The other is (hopefully, I admit I miss it sometimes too) not POV, and describes facts.
Lastly, I took serious issue with this
"an open mind in the face of overwhelming fact is willful refusal to pass judgement, not a lack of bias."
No, it is reporting. Reporting is not the injection of your assessment of whther something is supported by overwhelming fact. That is editorializing, and you suggestion that it is the correct way to approach journalism is ludicrous.
"When Wal-Mart moves in, the people in the community undercut all the local businesses by buying from Wal-Mart when they sell at a loss, driving them out of business"
I added the parts that you intentionally left out, in order to demonize Wal-Mart.
As has happened in MANY MANY other places, small businesses can and do stay viable while competing with Wal-Mart. They simply have to offer some extra value to go along with the higher prices.
If people really agreed with you, they would support the mom and pop businesses with their money. They don't, and that should tell you how they feel about what you think.
You are blaming a company for providing a product that the people in the community want. It is not the fault of the company, it is the fault of the population of that town.