[tomder55]

I watched a lot of the debate last night. For the most part it was a snoozer. Hillary and Edwards are right in one regard . There are too many pretenders on the stage and it is really impossible to debate in that format.

I fault CNN for editing out the most interesting questions . I have no proof of that of course but the bottom line was that they selected the same old fluff and stuff that they would've asked themselves without the you tubers . What they should've done was to create a panel of bloggers from the left and right to screen the questions . I often wonder if the candidates get a veto on questions asked because I rarely hear a probing question in these formats . I guess if I were a candidate I would want the editorial prerogative also but let's not kid ourselves .These are not debates as much as infomericals .

I thought if I had to pick a "winner" if would've been Joe Biden. I do not agree with his proposals but at least he advances some that can be considered alternatives worthy of debate . Also ;the candidate from Alaska,Mike Gravel mentioned that he would like to restructure the tax code toward a consumption tax above an income tax . I agree.

[ETWolverine]

I tend to get my news from ABC radio and the NY Post. I avoid the NY Slimes and Washington Compost like the plague. I tend to discount anything on TV news as erroneus until I find corroboration elsewhere... because more often than not, it is.

But here's the key... when the news media (conservative or liberal) quote a source, I try to go to that source and get the full story myself. When they quote the national budget, I read the entire national budget. When they quote a poll, I read the entire poll, not just the parts they quote. When they quote a speech, I read the whole speech so that I can get the quote in context. When they quote a legal ruling, I read the entire decision. When they quote a thinktank report, I read the entire report. That way I can make my decisions based on the original source information, rather than the media's slant on that information. And that's why I'm able to quote primary sources for my information so often.

It makes the difference, in my opinion, to do the research myself and come to my own conclusions rather than relying on someone else's interpretation of the original sources. Sometimes I have to rely on interpretation anyway, because sometimes the original source isn't available. But I can usually tell what's slant and spin, and what's reasonably good information based on other information already in my possession. It's harder to do, and it takes more time than reading a 10-line story in a newspaper or a 30-second clip on TV news. But I think its worth the effort.

Elliot

[Dark_crow]

I tend to get my news from ABC radio and the NY Post. I avoid the NY Slimes and Washington Compost like the plague. I tend to discount anything on TV news as erroneus until I find corroboration elsewhere... because more often than not, it is.

But here's the key... when the news media (conservative or liberal) quote a source, I try to go to that source and get the full story myself. When they quote the national budget, I read the entire national budget. When they quote a poll, I read the entire poll, not just the parts they quote. When they quote a speech, I read the whole speech so that I can get the quote in context. When they quote a legal ruling, I read the entire decision. When they quote a thinktank report, I read the entire report. That way I can make my decisions based on the original source information, rather than the media's slant on that information. And that's why I'm able to quote primary sources for my information so often.

It makes the difference, in my opinion, to do the research myself and come to my own conclusions rather than relying on someone else's interpretation of the original sources. Sometimes I have to rely on interpretation anyway, because sometimes the original source isn't available. But I can usually tell what's slant and spin, and what's reasonably good infomation based on other information already in my possession. It's harder to do, and it takes more time than reading a 10-line story in a newspaper or a 30-second clip on TV news. But I think its worth the effort.

Elliot

I am a witness to your tried and true methods; context is the most misunderstood concept by the public at large, and the most misused by many news and political writers.

[Choux]

Primarily from facts on television and the internet( i.e. 40 killed in marketplace bombing in Baghdad) (or Gen so-and-so appointed commander of the War in Iraq... etc).

I learned how to think logically at University and I draw my own conclusions from facts and knowledge and parts of op-ed comments of those people I respect.

Then, I get really mad!! :)

[ETWolverine]

Primarily from facts on television and the internet( i.e. 40 killed in marketplace bombing in Baghdad) (or Gen so-and-so appointed commander of the War in Iraq... etc).

Now, you see, this is the problem. Other than the fact that 40 died in a marketplace bombing do you really have any information at all in that case? Like whether 35 of them were actually terrorists who planted the bomb, and the other five were soldiers trying to disarm the bomb? Or do you just jump to a conclusion that everyone who is killed is a civilian victim? Unless you go to the original information feed, there is no way to know.

I learned how to think logically at University

Then why don't you?

and I draw my own conclusions from facts and knowledge and parts of op-ed comments of those people I respect.

Op-ed articles are good for finding interpretations of events. But they are not FACTS, they are opinions. If you are making decisions based solely on the information you get from op-eds, you are making decisions based on other peoples' opinions, not facts.

Then, I get really mad!! :)

And that is the heart of the problem. You don't think logically, you think emotionally.

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

ET, face it, unless the person responding is from your crowd and selects the same sources as yourself then you will disagree with everything they say. That is your nature here.

[Mario3]

excon, maybe you get more from your rightwing friends because most of the news is right wing in america. The media is right wing here and mostly biased to help the republican agenda

[ETWolverine]

ET, face it, unless the person responding is from your crowd and selects the same sources as yourself then you will disagree with everything they say. That is your nature here.

I disagree. It is only when people spout off without having sources to back up their dubious facts that I disagree with everything they say. We can argue about the meaning of the facts all day long, and I can respect that. But when people come up with "facts" that aren't born out by reliable sources, then there isn't even anything to disagree with. That's why I use reliable sources for my information. You can disagree with me about the meaning of the information, but you cannot legitimately say that the information itself is without a source or is false.

For instance, I posted on another string today about Bush's recent poll numbers. YOU posted another source I had not seen (the American Research Institute poll), and your source is a good one, and I have integrated it into my own information. I accept it as valid. I disagree with your conclusions regarding PBS, but I respect that you aren't making stuff up to support your argument.

Mario3, on the other hand has stated that the poll numbers are all rigged so that Bush can make his buddies rich. He stated it as "fact" not opinion. And I therefore ripped the statement apart in a follow-up post. Not because he disagreed with me, but because he was making stuff up out of thin air and posting it as "fact" and expecting others to accept it as such.

So, while I may disagree with your point of view on a particular topic, if your arguments are logical, I will accept that as a valid point, and if your sources are valid, I will accept them as valid. Even if I don't agree with your conclusions. But if someone starts making stuff up, that is when I will them on their BS. Mario has a history of making stuff up, and then disappearing when asked to name a source. And I intend to call him on it every time.

Look, sometimes I get carried away with my arguments, and if I have insulted you, I apologize. That is not my intent. I respect your intellect, even when we are disagreeing, which seems to be most of the time. You are a smart cookie, and I appreciate your ability to argue your case elloquently, even if I don't agree with your point. So I apologize for any insult I have given.

And there are a few issues we agree on: cutting government spending is one. The need to attain energy independence is another. There are a few points of agreement.

But Mario is a whole different ball of wax. If he is just making stuff up, I have no respect for him. And so far, not once has he supplied a source for his dubious statistics (90% of all recipients of welfare are white males... yeah, right. 1/3 of all monies from the federal government for Katerina relief went to religious charities. Uh huh). He proves the old addage that 87.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Why should I respect that?

Nevertheless, despite the fact that I disagree with him and others, I have never once given a negative rating based on opinion. Heck, I haven't even given a negative rating for bad statistical information or provably wrong data. I try to treat even those whit whom I disagree with a modecum of respect, and that includes Mario. I can disagree in a civil manner.

Also, keep in mind that my banter with Excon dates back several years to another Q&A website. He and I know each other, and neither of us takes the other too seriously. So if you are basing your assessment of me on my discussions with excon, don't. It's not a fair case, and there's a lot of background stuff you weren't in on.

Elliot

[Mario3]

Oh dear you will have no respect for me until I am dead and the truth comes out.
Hey, people who accused Nixon of trying to change healthcare so only a few big time businessmen benefit were called crazy. And everyone asked them site there source. Here you go wolfy, enjoy the republican dream:
Miller Center of Public Affairs - Richard Nixon - Oval Office Recordings

[Mario3]

Lol straight from the horses mouth. Not from the news who explains what someone else says for us. But this is straight from the horses dirty mouth

[Mario3]

Wolfy, here are the numbers from CBS, to only explain that 20 million of the 125 million were given specificly to the churches of the Gulf Coast alone…so imagine how much more went to churches altogether? Beware of when you challenge me, because I am going to show you how in the dark you have been. I'm going to make you look like the biggest republican idiot as of now… here comes the facts “Wolf”
Religious Leaders Quit Katrina Panel, 7 Interfaith Members Leave Bush-Clinton Fund; Say Advice Was Ignored - CBS News

Where Did Post-Katrina Charity Money Go? - News - MSNBC.com This mentions three things that the government's money went to. The Church comes first (Bush's proposal). Then the black colleges (Clinton's proposal) and then governers. All this made a very slow process of money distribution to get people back on track.

[Dark_crow]

Wolfy, here are the numbers from CBS, to only explain that 20 million of the 125 million were given specificly to the churches of the Gulf Coast alone…so imagine how much more went to churches altogether? Beware of when you challenge me, because I am going to show you how in the dark you have been. I’m going to make you look like the biggest republican idiot as of now… here comes the facts “Wolf”
Religious Leaders Quit Katrina Panel, 7 Interfaith Members Leave Bush-Clinton Fund; Say Advice Was Ignored - CBS News

Where Did Post-Katrina Charity Money Go? - News - MSNBC.com This mentions three things that the government’s money went to. The Church comes first (Bush’s proposal). Then the black colleges (Clinton’s proposal) and then governers. All this made a very slow process of money distribution to get people back on track.

Are you of the opinion that the churches did not distribute the money to the needy… that they pocketed it!! :eek:

[ETWolverine]

oh dear you will have no respect for me until i am dead and the truth comes out.
Hey, people who accused Nixon of trying to change healthcare so only a few big time businessmen benefit were called crazy. And everyone asked them site there source. Here you go wolfy, enjoy the republican dream:
Miller Center of Public Affairs - Richard Nixon - Oval Office Recordings

Who's creating strawman arguments now, Mario? I've never even spoken about Nixon on this website. I don't support Nixon on most domesti issues, and only marginally on his grudging support for Israel. But I certainly haven't tried to defend him on this site. So the idea of posting that link to discredit an argument I never even made is what we refer to as a strawman argument, and YOU are the one doing it.

And again, if you are going to ite numbers, like how 1/3 of all money from the Bush Administration for Katerina reliefe went to religious organizations, you better be able to back it up with a source. Same if you are going to say that 90% of all people collecting welfare are white males.

If you don't have a source for it, don't post it as fact, but rather as "opinion". You can differentiate between the two by saying "I think..." or "In my opinion..." at the beginning of the statement. That way, when you say things like "I THINK the polls are all rigged", people will not expect you to provide a source for this ludicrous claim. And if you say "IN MY OPINION Bush was selected not elected", they won't ask you to prove it, but rather will accept it as an opinion to be ignored.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Wolfy, here are the numbers from CBS, to only explain that 20 million of the 125 million were given specificly to the churches of the Gulf Coast alone…so imagine how much more went to churches altogether? Beware of when you challenge me, because I am going to show you how in the dark you have been. I’m going to make you look like the biggest republican idiot as of now… here comes the facts “Wolf”
Religious Leaders Quit Katrina Panel, 7 Interfaith Members Leave Bush-Clinton Fund; Say Advice Was Ignored - CBS News

Where Did Post-Katrina Charity Money Go? - News - MSNBC.com This mentions three things that the government’s money went to. The Church comes first (Bush’s proposal). Then the black colleges (Clinton’s proposal) and then governers. All this made a very slow process of money distribution to get people back on track.

Have you bothered actually READING your sources? First of all, these articles are about CHARITABLE DONATIONS for Katerina relief. They have absolutely NOTHING to do with President Bush and Federal funds. Federal monies aren't even mentioned in the articles.

If you have problems with the charitable organizations, fine. But what does that have to do with the Bush Administration? He's not in charge of the charitable funds. There is a Bush-Clinton Katerina Relief Fund mentioned, but that has nothing to do with President Bush. It is a fund started by the ELDER President Bush and President Clinton, and it has nothing to do with the government or the President. And I don't think that the Elder Bush or Clinton had a say in how the monies were distributed... they were just fund raisers. But even if they did have anything to do with how the funds were distributed, it has nothing to do with the Federal Government or the current President Bush.

Furthermore, quoting from your sources...

"I think the group that raised the most red flags was probably Habitat for Humanity," said Trent Stamp, president of watchdog group Charity Navigator. "They were certainly on the forefront of receiving public attention. We can flash-back to they were building houses in Rockefeller Square -- they were right there on the forefront. And then when it came out, they didn't spend a whole lot of money in the actual affected area."

Habitat for Humanity. That would be Jimmy Carter's organization, wouldn't it?

Finally, 20/125 is approximately 1/6 of the total funds, not 1/3. So you can't even do basic math. And again, $20 million was earmarked by the Bush-Clinton Fund for rebuilding of faith-based organization. The other $105 million (5/6th of the total) was earmarked for everything else, including individual homes, businesses, etc. But in any case, it wasn't 1/3 of the total, but rather 1/6th of the total.

And back to my original question: where is your source that 1/3 of FEDERAL FUNDS went to religious organizations.

If you are going to try to make me look like an idiot, you could at least start by staying on topic. The TOPIC WAS FEDERAL FUNDS SENT BY BUSH FOR KATERINA RELIEF... NOT CHARITABLE DONATIONS TO CHARITIES. If you can't stay on topic, the only one who is going to come out looking like an idiot is you.

Elliot

[Dark_crow]

Have you bothered actually READING your sources? First of all, these articles are about CHARITABLE DONATIONS for Katerina relief. They have absolutely NOTHING to do with President Bush and Federal funds. Federal monies aren't even mentioned in the articles.

If you have problems with the charitable organizations, fine. But what does that have to do with the Bush Administration? He's not in charge of the charitable funds. There is a Bush-Clinton Katerina Relief Fund mentioned, but that has nothing to do with President Bush. It is a fund started by the ELDER President Bush and President Clinton, and it has nothing to do with the government or the President. And I don't think that the Elder Bush or Clinton had a say in how the monies were distributed... they were just fund raisers. But even if they did have anything to do with how the funds were distributed, it has nothing to do with the Federal Government or the current President Bush.

Furthermore, quoting from your sources...



Habitat for Humanity. That would be Jimmy Carter's organization, wouldn't it?

Finally, 20/125 is approximately 1/6 of the total funds, not 1/3. So you can't even do basic math. And again, $20 million was earmarked by the Bush-Clinton Fund for rebuilding of faith-based organization. The other $105 million (5/6th of the total) was earmarked for everything else, including individual homes, businesses, etc. But in any case, it wasn't 1/3 of the total, but rather 1/6th of the total.

And back to my original question: where is your source that 1/3 of FEDERAL FUNDS went to religious organizations.

If you are going to try to make me look like an idiot, you could at least start by staying on topic. The TOPIC WAS FEDERAL FUNDS SENT BY BUSH FOR KATERINA RELIEF... NOT CHARITABLE DONATIONS TO CHARITIES. If you can't stay on topic, the only one who is going to come out looking like an idiot is you.

Elliot

I hereby dismiss your charges against Mario … on the basis that it is clear that Mario requires the assistance of an interpreter.
Case Dismissed!:D

[ETWolverine]

I hereby dismiss your charges against Mario … on the basis that it is clear that Mario requires the assistance of an interpreter.
Case Dismissed!:D

He doesn't need an interpreter. He needs a therapist.

[Mario3]

Haha lol I have to admit that's pretty funny wolfy and dark croan

[Dark_crow]

haha lol i have to admit that's pretty funny wolfy and dark croan

I won’t let him railroad you Mario; he believes in violating rights, but I will defend them to the very end; we will go down together! :p

[ETWolverine]

he believes in violating rights

I do not... I contend that Mario's rights weren't violated. He's not unintelligent, he's just ignorant of the facts and unwilling to learn. He has effectively waived his right to be correct by his own actions.

[nicespringgirl]

I get them from the daily show,LOL. Got to love americans on all the rights they have.
I didn't say I trust the resource.
There is no way to TRUST ANYTHING in this world.
Just get a general idea from any resource that is convinient (mostly daily show and newspaper deleivered home), always "trust in GOD but tie your horse!"