[tomder55]

If you mean elected officials are 'special interests ' I agree. Andrew Cuomo suppressed a fracking study in NY ; Emperor Zero holding on to the report about the GMO salmon; Former VP Goracle making a major fortune exploiting bad science... yeah dem special interests .

[NeedKarma]

if you mean elected officials are 'special interests ' I agree. Andrew Cuomo suppressed a fracking study in NY ; Emperor Zero holding on to the report about the GMO salmon; Former VP Goracle making a major fortune exploiting bad science... yeah dem special interests .

Why are you only focusing on democrats?

[talaniman]

Because the right is just as loonie as the left. Now that's a fact we can count on. We don't vote for our loonies though. Nor do we allow them to pull us too far from the mainstream center. We don't kick out the middle guys either as not being left enough.

[tomder55]

Why are you only focusing on democrats?

Show me the Republic who deliberately buried a scientific study for political purposes recently .

[Tuttyd]

show me the Repubic who deliberately buried a scientific study for political purposes recently .

Tom you need look no further than the original posting.

Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski has repeatedly tried to tie up the FDA in red tape. She previously tried but failed to get the Senate to involve NOAA in the process. She has said again and again that a more scientific review of the biotechnology was in order. But she let it slip on Friday that the demand for a better science was really more a smokescreen for efforts to simply kill the idea.

At the end of her video clip she says, "I simply don't believe these fish should be approved"

Agendized 'science' by consensus, that's how we got this climate change charade.

Exactly. Now that global warming is settled all we need to do is make sure that GMO is settled in the same way.

You might think global warming is far from settled, but I might think it is settled. Tom might think GMO is settled, and I might not think it is settled . But in the end the democracy doesn't matter. All that matters is the rational process. It is the debate you have when there really is no debate. The outcome has always been known.

[speechlesstx]

All that matters is the rational process.

Kind of like how you came to agree that Fox News, which consistently presents multiple viewpoints is to be dismissed just as a smear organization waging “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” against said media outlet even though far more biased media outlets get a pass?

Tom you need look no further than the original posting.

Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski has repeatedly tried to tie up the FDA in red tape. She previously tried but failed to get the Senate to involve NOAA in the process. She has said again and again that a more scientific review of the biotechnology was in order. But she let it slip on Friday that the demand for a better science was really more a smokescreen for efforts to simply kill the idea.

At the end of her video clip she says, "I simply don't believe these fish should be approved"

Murkowski thinks like a liberal, but at least she was open and honest instead of actually hiding the science until after the election because of the political implications.

[Tuttyd]

Murkowski thinks like a liberal, but at least she was open and honest instead of actually hiding the science until after the election because of the political implications.

I see, so she is really a liberal. Sounds like the,"no true Scotsman" approach to me.

Show me a Democrat who deliberately buried a scientific study for political purposes.

Whoever you come up with I just say they think like a Republican.

[speechlesstx]

I see, so she is really a liberal. Sounds like the,"no true Scotsman" approach to me.

Show me a Democrat who deliberately buried a scientific study for political purposes.

Whoever you come up with I just say they think like a Republican.

No, just pointing out she is a liberal Republican, why should we be surprised she would think that way on GM? As for showing a Democrat burying it for political purposes look no further than the OP.

However, the draft assessment, dated April 19, 2012, was not released—blocked on orders from the White House.

The seven month delay, sources within the government say, came after discussions late last spring between Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius’ office and officials linked to Valerie Jarrett at the Executive Office, who were debating the political implications of approving the GM salmon.

Game, set, match.

Speaking of science and other stuff, why are we doubling down on ethanol, which no one wants, does nothing to help the environment and takes up 40 percent of our corn crop so we can all pay even higher grocery prices? At least I now know why my church built a feeding center in Guatemala, they can't afford to make tortillas any more.

As Biofuel Demand Grows, So Do Guatemala’s Hunger Pangs

[Tuttyd]

No, just pointing out she is a liberal Republican, why should we be surprised she would think that way on GM? As for showing a Democrat burying it for political purposes look no further than the OP.



Game, set, match.

I wasn't seriously asking for anyone to show me a Democrat who deliberately buried a scientific study for political purposes. I posted it to show you are applying the, "no true Scotsman " fallacy.Namely, no true Republican would bury a report.
They all obviously do it.



Tut

[talaniman]

Of course your term blocked could be the white house reviewing the data, or that Murkowski represents her states industry interests. Naw that can't be a possibility, there has to be some conspiracy behind motives.

[Tuttyd]

Kind of like how you came to agree that Fox News, which consistently presents multiple viewpoints is to be dismissed just as a smear organization waging “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” against said media outlet even though far more biased media outlets get a pass?

"Waging guerrilla warfare and sabotage" don't sound like words I'd use. Are you sure that is what I said?

Again, I don't remember giving other media outlets a pass. In fact I would have more than likely said that you don't really have an objective media.

I do remember you saying that if the media were in any way objective Obama would have lost in a landslide. I am pretty sure that I stated an agreement with that proposition.

I could be wrong, but I'll wait for a reply to the contrary.



Tut

[talaniman]

Get use to right wing embellishment to prove a point. They can't believe that women and minorities don't believe the guys on Fox are fair and balanced and Rush and Glenn are geniuses.

I think it was the drone of the fat lazy 47% by fat and lazy rich guy that sank them though, and the reforms Romney/Ryan were going to push, plus we all love Big Bird.

Conservatives are no longer a majority, and certainly not ultra conservatives that want to tell you what OUR rights are. The way I see it, the right sunk themselves and it had little to do with the media. Most young people are never home and watch little TV news when they are.

[speechlesstx]

"Waging guerrilla warfare and sabotage" don't sound like words I'd use. Are you sure that is what I said?

Again, I don't remember giving other media outlets a pass. In fact I would have more than likely said that you don't really have an objective media.

I do remember you saying that if the media were in any way objective Obama would have lost in a landslide. I am pretty sure that I stated an agreement with that proposition.

I could be wrong, but I'll wait for a reply to the contrary.



Tut

You didn't say that, you just agreed with NK's ridiculous conclusion.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/its-come-713241-30.html#post3361344

[tomder55]

Tom you need look no further than the original posting.

Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski has repeatedly tried to tie up the FDA in red tape.

I said Republic not RINO

[paraclete]

You got more types of Republican than you got states, what part of the word party don't you understand

A political party (from Latin: pars, Genitive partis, "part", "portion") is a political organization that typically seeks to influence government policy, usually by nominating candidates with aligned political views and trying to seat them in political office. Parties participate in electoral campaigns and educational outreach or protest actions. Parties often espouse an expressed ideology or vision bolstered by a written platform with specific goals, forming a coalition among disparate interests.

A political party not a group of people with diametrically opposed views, did you notice the definition included "aligned political views"?

[NeedKarma]

I said Republic not RINO

Ah yes, the "no true scotsman" claim
No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[paraclete]

Well I suppose we could say no true american would be a republican or no true american would be a democrat but all would be patriots, and we know patriotism is the refuge of scoundrels

[Tuttyd]

You didn't say that, you just agreed with NK's ridiculous conclusion.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post3361344

Actually we were all wrong.I sahould have said something then and there but I didn't because I though I might be accused of nit picking. See how little things can grow.

You posted an article by Politico to show that Media matters was waging a war against Fox. Their stated intention was to sabotage Fox.

You told NK that he couldn't tell the difference between a conservative leaning media outlet which aired both sides of a debate and a so-call media watchdog with an obsession to destroy Fox.

NK said, "What's the problem with that? Does it invalidate the news source?


It was assumed by Tom and yourself that it in fact does invalidate objective journalism. Actually it doesn't. The disposition of Media Matters to make an argument false does not mean that the argument presented is actually false. The only way to tell if the content is objective or not is to examine the text. Only after this can we determine its objectivity or other wise.

How you ever noticed that when Tom posts a think tank study he nearly always adds something like this at the end. Yes, I know a right wing study, no credibility.

And I mostly answer. "Not necessarily Tom, I will have a look at the study and get back to you.

By not saying something from the onset I made a comment that was not strictly correct. In fact we can apply the same standards to Fox and every other News outlet. All that matters is the content of the report. The moral of the story for me is to make sure I nit pick at every opportunity.

[Tuttyd]

You didn't say that, you just agreed with NK's ridiculous conclusion.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post3361344

You posted an article by Politico to show that Media matters was out to get Fox. You told N.K that he can't tell the difference between a conservative leaning media outlet that airs both sides of an argument an a so called media watch dog with an obsession to destroy Fox.

NK asked, What's wrong with that? Does it invalidate the news source? Both Tom and yourself incorrectly believe that it does. In fact it doesn't. This is because a disposition to render an argument false does not mean that the argument itself is false. In other words, the only way to determine if an article lacks objectivity is to actually examine the article.

Tut

[speechlesstx]

well I suppose we could say no true american would be a republican or no true american would be a democrat but all would be patriots, and we know patriotism is the refuge of scoundrels

Democrats can be patriots, they just have a different view of patriotism. Evidently, if your predecessor adds to the debt that's unpatriotic, but if you add to the debt it's patriotic as long as you ask others to pay for it out of "economic patriotism."