USSA

FSETH · #1 11-02-2008, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL

Fair comment. I wasn't commenting on the originally posted slide show, I had stopped it after several frames. I was commenting on the 8 or 9 posts talking about his inability to get a security clearance.

Since you asked, I went back and watched the slide show. I think I threw up in my mouth. It is very worrisome that there are people who think so small, who may actually have the right to vote. I don't think it is worth disputing the 10 or so complete fabrications that I saw up front, and I don't think anyone wants to see the counters. As I've posted in the past, go to independent fact-checking sites and see what they say about some of those claims.

Have a great election day, and may the democratic collective will of the people prevail. That presumes that collective (in this particular context) isn't a socialist word, as has been claimed previously. Also note the intentional use of the lower case d in democratic.

Cheers

Like I said, If you don't want to believe the things that are actually true in that slide show that is your choice. Not all of the mentioned items are true, agreed. Nobody can make you believe anything other than what you want to. You have just as much a right to ignore the things that are true as much as anyone else (i.e. blondeboi). There were many points in that article that you can not refute.

Quicksilver · #2 11-02-2008, 08:07 PM

Interesting conclusion;

You did say that "Not all of the mentioned items are true, agreed."
If that's the case then why would anyone place any credibility in the rest
of what is being purported from a source if they support those so called truths with lies?

Don't take it personally but i find it difficult to latch on to hyperbole. The truth should stand on it's own without the support of lies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FSETH

Like I said, If you don't want to believe the things that are actually true in that slide show that is your choice. Not all of the mentioned items are true, agreed. Nobody can make you believe anything other than what you want to. You have just as much a right to ignore the things that are true as much as anyone else (i.e. blondeboi). There were many points in that article that you can not refute.

JCL · #3 11-02-2008, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

Interesting conclusion;

You did say that "Not all of the mentioned items are true, agreed."
If that's the case then why would anyone place any credibility in the rest
of what is being purported from a source if they support those so called truths with lies?

Don't take it personally but i find it difficult to latch on to hyperbole. The truth should stand on it's own without the support of lies.

FSETH: That is my premise. Once I got up to 8 or 10 items that were demonstrably not true in that slide show, I ran out of will to go search on the rest. Anything that is so one-sided may still have some true items buried within it, I agree. It is just that it is so hard to find the nuggets of truth that it isn't worth the trouble. The authors eliminated themselves from serious consideration or debate by their hyperbole. I think Quick hit it right on the head.

FSETH · #4 11-02-2008, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL

FSETH: That is my premise. Once I got up to 8 or 10 items that were demonstrably not true in that slide show, I ran out of will to go search on the rest. Anything that is so one-sided may still have some true items buried within it, I agree. It is just that it is so hard to find the nuggets of truth that it isn't worth the trouble. The authors eliminated themselves from serious consideration or debate by their hyperbole. I think Quick hit it right on the head.

The problem with that is that you only disputed one of the numerous claims in the slide show. There is a lot of truth to it.

I don't think it is a black or white issue. There are some shades of grey here. It would be arrogant on my part to assume thet every single point in the slide show is 100% correct and can't be disputed. I simply said that there is truth in the slide show and if you can't admit that then you are either misinformed, lying to yourself or in complete denial.

To insinuate that this is 100% bogus or mostly bogus because it may not be 100% true is just wrong. If that is what you think then please explain why or prove each point to the contrary. Don't just attack one aspect of a 25+ point topic and assume that it is 100% incorrect.

I understand questioning things and that is why I was the one who said it is not 100% true. If you think that it is 100% incorrect, then you are as much of a sheep as the people who think it is 100% accurate, IMO.

I will have to say, that it is actually a little ironic that the two defending this the most either can't or won't vote.

JCL · #5 11-02-2008, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FSETH

The problem with that is that you only disputed one of the numerous claims in the slide show. There is a lot of truth to it.

I don't think it is a black or white issue. There are some shades of grey here. It would be arrogant on my part to assume thet every single point in the slide show is 100% correct and can't be disputed. I simply said that there is truth in the slide show and if you can't admit that then you are either misinformed, lying to yourself or in complete denial.

To insinuate that this is 100% bogus or mostly bogus because it may not be 100% true is just wrong. If that is what you think then please explain why or prove each point to the contrary. Don't just attack one aspect of a 25+ point topic and assume that it is 100% incorrect.

I understand questioning things and that is why I was the one who said it is not 100% true. If you think that it is 100% incorrect, then you are as much of a sheep as the people who think it is 100% accurate, IMO.

I will have to say, that it is actually a little ironic that the two defending this the most either can't or won't vote.

Why are you putting the burden of proof on me? I just commented that based on several points which I knew the background on, the authors had little or no credibility left. Why would I give them the benefit of the doubt on the rest of the points? That would be illogical. In a courtroom, the authors would be termed unreliable witnesses, and any good information they had would be tossed out because of how they came across on other points.

There may be some truth in the slide show, agreed, but not simply because the issue is included in the slide show. And, it gets lost in the extremism. I haven't seen the proof, but if you have it, great.

As to irony, I am not defending something here, I am just suggesting that the original slide show is crap. That isn't a partisan position. If you or someone else posted something equally one-sided about another candidate, you would find me dismissing it just as quickly.

FSETH · #6 11-03-2008, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL

Why are you putting the burden of proof on me? I just commented that based on several points which I knew the background on, the authors had little or no credibility left. Why would I give them the benefit of the doubt on the rest of the points? That would be illogical. In a courtroom, the authors would be termed unreliable witnesses, and any good information they had would be tossed out because of how they came across on other points.

There may be some truth in the slide show, agreed, but not simply because the issue is included in the slide show. And, it gets lost in the extremism. I haven't seen the proof, but if you have it, great.

As to irony, I am not defending something here, I am just suggesting that the original slide show is crap. That isn't a partisan position. If you or someone else posted something equally one-sided about another candidate, you would find me dismissing it just as quickly.

I am not putting the burden of proof on you. I simply said that you disputed only one aspect of the original post. There were numerous points made and there is truth to a lot of it. Take that for what it is worth and believe what you want.

I can agree that it was a partisan message, but don't discount the whole post because of that. We are not in court here. If I said that 2 + 2 = 4 and the earth is flat, does that make the first part of that statement false? Nope. There was far more truth in that message than false statements. Why aren't we talking about those?

Like I said from the begging, there may be some innacuracies in the slide show, but there are more truths. Believe what you want and look at it however you wish, but I don't think it is fair to discount the truths altogether.

JCL · #7 11-04-2008, 12:59 AM

FSETH: This is somewhat theoretical, but here goes.

If you are watching what you believe may be a biased source, and you catch several inaccuracies, I am just suggesting that the source then has little credibility with the remaining items that may or may not be true. It doesn't make those other items any less true. But how do you personally discern which ones are true and which ones aren't?

While I am proposing that you discount the biased source because it has no credibility, you are suggesting that there are still some true items. Those positions aren't necessarily in conflict. We can agree completely. You just need to find a new and trusted source to bring the true items forward, since this source is discredited. If you know those other items are true, then it must be from a trusted source, and that is exactly what we need here, another source.

Put another way, you say it is biased, but some items are true. I say very likely correct. However, we need a source for the true items, and there isn't one in this thread.

Somehow I think this matters less given the time to the election.

x5GuyInLA · #8 11-02-2008, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

Interesting conclusion;

You did say that "Not all of the mentioned items are true, agreed."
If that's the case then why would anyone place any credibility in the rest
of what is being purported from a source if they support those so called truths with lies?

Don't take it personally but i find it difficult to latch on to hyperbole. The truth should stand on it's own without the support of lies.

the same can be said about some of things that have been said about McCain. Does that mean anything that is true loses it's credibility because of the untrue things?

JCL · #9 11-02-2008, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by x5GuyInLA

the same can be said about some of things that have been said about McCain. Does that mean anything that is true loses it's credibility because of the untrue things?

Quick can answer for himself, but since we are essentially saying the same thing here:

I would say that truth doesn't lose credibility. Truth is truth. People or organizations lose credibility. And yes, if an organization lies a lot, then they lose credibility and the items that they say carry little or no weight, even if some of them happen to be true.

And I would say that yes, it works in both directions (Republicans and Democrats, in this case)

Quicksilver · #10 11-03-2008, 01:08 AM

But it seems to me that trying to find meaningful portions
of truth among so much hyperbole is an exercise in futility.
But anyone can find a shred of truth among any lie.
It just depends on which part you want to cling to.
One could highlight both you know.

I don't think anyone around here is willing to take a stand
on facts submitted in evidence regarding what is or what
isn't. The problem facing us all is that fact that none of us
are in a position to verify the evidence provided by sources
which clearly are biased on one side or the other.

Personally i find the majority of it humorous beyond belief
and taking any of it seriously is nothing more than an exercise
in gullibility. Flim Flam at it's best.

Quote:

Originally Posted by x5GuyInLA

the same can be said about some of things that have been said about McCain. Does that mean anything that is true loses it's credibility because of the untrue things?