|
Post by Sean Sultan on Oct 27, 2008 23:07:31 GMT -8
he didnt win the GOP because his ideas are too far from the regular. he had such a great grass roots movement that the mainline GOP was afraid of him. i think thats a good thing. Look. Ron Paul didn't win any primaries or any caucasus. That's the truth. Even open primaries (ie primaries were you aren't restricted by party affiliation). To me that says enough. Again, I wouldn't vote for him because I don't share his views on deregulation. However, he has many good ideas and I'd be far more likely to vote for him than John McCain. He may have had a good grass roots movement but Obama had a great grass roots movement also and he's favored for president so I don't see your point. Ron Paul may have had a great grass roots movement but Obama kicked his ass.. I guess the real test will come this November right. I guess we'll see who had the best grass roots movement then.
|
|
|
Post by Sean Sultan on Oct 27, 2008 23:17:48 GMT -8
First...It was a joke. Second...Fox News (aka faux news aka fixed news aka fox newsless) is too busy sucking elephant cock to comment anything credible about the GOP or any of its members. On the rare occasions that they actually speak against the Republican Party it's a surprise but usually has to do with something they're pissed about. Unless it's not in which case it's credibly awesome. True, MSNBC is usually fairly liberal, however they're a lot less liberal than people give them credit for. The reason people believe MSNBC is so liberal is because they have openly oppose Bush for the past four or more years. However, one person a party or lean (left/right) does not make. MSNBC is by far more centralist than say Fox or CNN. ABC and CBS are generally a bit conservative but are still by far more central than Fox. I agree with Chris. Until you see both sides, you can't really know what's going on, or whatever close to news we can get. Look, covering your bases is important but Fixed News is not a reliable news source. It IS a reliable propaganda machine. If Chris had said ABC, then I would have been more agreeable. maybe...this is a troll thread. But he said Fox and that's almost insulting. And what are the research police (i.e. YOU) going to do about it? bitch. Yeah, I'm callin' you out.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Oct 27, 2008 23:36:12 GMT -8
I agree with Chris. Until you see both sides, you can't really know what's going on, or whatever close to news we can get. Look, covering your bases is important but Fixed News is not a reliable news source. It IS a reliable propaganda machine. If Chris had said ABC, then I would have been more agreeable. maybe...this is a troll thread. But he said Fox and that's almost insulting. And what are the research police (i.e. YOU) going to do about it? bitch.
Yeah, I'm callin' you out. I said Fox as an example to get perspective. I never said you need to agree with, believe, or for that matter take seriously everything you read, see, or hear. My point is that there are a million sides to every story, and to have a respectable, well-informed opinion one should always use as many sources as possible so as to obtain perspective on said story. As for Wikipedia, it's well known that pretty much anyone can login and post information, confirmed or not. I've heard of bands logging on to their own pages and making up tons of bullshit about themselves and it ended up getting published. I've used Wikipedia as a reference several times, but I've checked the sources (which are listed at the bottom of any page. If they don't cite sources, it's probably not credible or verifiable information.) I've had multiple professors explicitly state in their research paper guidelines that Wikipedia is not an acceptable source. However, like I said, it's a great starting point for finding credible sources, should they actually exist. As for "calling people out" and calling them a "bitch," I am a little concerned. This is a spirited debate, and it's fun. It's hard to detect sarcasm on paper, so I'm not sure if you were just goofing around, but let's keep it a little more civil so no feelings get hurt. I love to see everyone's opinions, but I think we can do it in a less aggressive manner.
|
|
|
Post by Shayne the Kid on Oct 27, 2008 23:43:10 GMT -8
The media will publish what it wants you to see and hear. The media companies are run by huge super powers who back certain political figures, plain and simple. We are a brainwashed nation.
|
|
|
Post by danny on Oct 28, 2008 1:38:37 GMT -8
We are a brainwashed nation. well, we are
|
|
|
Post by Shayne the Kid on Oct 28, 2008 2:23:42 GMT -8
Are you saying I'm not American now!?!?!
|
|
|
Post by milofultz on Oct 28, 2008 5:36:51 GMT -8
As for Wikipedia, it's well known that pretty much anyone can login and post information, confirmed or not. I've heard of bands logging on to their own pages and making up tons of bullshit about themselves and it ended up getting published. No that's Dickipedia. www.dickipedia.org/dick.php?title=Main_Page
|
|
|
Post by Sean Sultan on Oct 28, 2008 6:06:17 GMT -8
Are you saying I'm not American now!?!?! yes. lol no he's saying that we are here and you are not. thus we are a brainwashed nation but we have no basis to assume that Spain is. Spaniard
|
|
|
Post by Shayne the Kid on Oct 28, 2008 6:15:05 GMT -8
Hahah well all I can say is the news here is very persistent on the political campaigns in the US. The things they show here are very different. Although it's not completely unbiased or unaltered.
|
|
|
Post by Sean Sultan on Oct 28, 2008 6:51:44 GMT -8
Look, covering your bases is important but Fixed News is not a reliable news source. It IS a reliable propaganda machine. If Chris had said ABC, then I would have been more agreeable. maybe...this is a troll thread. But he said Fox and that's almost insulting. And what are the research police (i.e. YOU) going to do about it? bitch.
Yeah, I'm callin' you out. I said Fox as an example to get perspective. I never said you need to agree with, believe, or for that matter take seriously everything you read, see, or hear. My point is that there are a million sides to every story, and to have a respectable, well-informed opinion one should always use as many sources as possible so as to obtain perspective on said story. As for Wikipedia, it's well known that pretty much anyone can login and post information, confirmed or not. I've heard of bands logging on to their own pages and making up tons of bullshit about themselves and it ended up getting published. I've used Wikipedia as a reference several times, but I've checked the sources (which are listed at the bottom of any page. If they don't cite sources, it's probably not credible or verifiable information.) I've had multiple professors explicitly state in their research paper guidelines that Wikipedia is not an acceptable source. However, like I said, it's a great starting point for finding credible sources, should they actually exist. As for "calling people out" and calling them a "bitch," I am a little concerned. This is a spirited debate, and it's fun. It's hard to detect sarcasm on paper, so I'm not sure if you were just goofing around, but let's keep it a little more civil so no feelings get hurt. I love to see everyone's opinions, but I think we can do it in a less aggressive manner.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Oct 28, 2008 11:38:50 GMT -8
I said Fox as an example to get perspective. I never said you need to agree with, believe, or for that matter take seriously everything you read, see, or hear. My point is that there are a million sides to every story, and to have a respectable, well-informed opinion one should always use as many sources as possible so as to obtain perspective on said story. As for Wikipedia, it's well known that pretty much anyone can login and post information, confirmed or not. I've heard of bands logging on to their own pages and making up tons of bullshit about themselves and it ended up getting published. I've used Wikipedia as a reference several times, but I've checked the sources (which are listed at the bottom of any page. If they don't cite sources, it's probably not credible or verifiable information.) I've had multiple professors explicitly state in their research paper guidelines that Wikipedia is not an acceptable source. However, like I said, it's a great starting point for finding credible sources, should they actually exist. As for "calling people out" and calling them a "bitch," I am a little concerned. This is a spirited debate, and it's fun. It's hard to detect sarcasm on paper, so I'm not sure if you were just goofing around, but let's keep it a little more civil so no feelings get hurt. I love to see everyone's opinions, but I think we can do it in a less aggressive manner. If you're concurring about the lack of legitimacy within Wikipedia articles, then I agree wholeheartedly.
|
|
|
Post by milofultz on Oct 28, 2008 12:08:22 GMT -8
I love to see everyone's opinions, but I think we can do it in a less aggressive manner. TROLL THREAD.
|
|
|
Post by milofultz on Oct 28, 2008 12:08:22 GMT -8
ANUS.
|
|
|
Post by Sean Sultan on Oct 28, 2008 12:43:57 GMT -8
I love to see everyone's opinions, but I think we can do it in a less aggressive manner. TROLL THREAD. I concur.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Oct 28, 2008 18:47:51 GMT -8
i concur anyways, as you said, Ron Paul is a better candidate for pres than McCain. remember, McCain only won because all the GOP base votes were split between romney and huckabee. well whate'r. whats the point in voting here in oregon anyways? due to the whole electoral college crap obamas gonna get oregon anyways... thats why i had no qualms throwing away my vote for Ronny, its not gonna make a difference anyways.
|
|