|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 09/06/2007 : 21:10:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
What is meaningless is the vote. What I find amusing is the anger people internalize over a process that has been shown corrupted for a very long time. |
Then what is the point of this whole thread?
|
Overt Revelation
Epiphany
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 09/07/2007 : 03:45:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Where are the embedded videos?
Paul wins and Fox lies about it.
If they lie on live TV, why would they post the info on the web?
|
So it was just a call in poll, meaning it was utterly worthless and has no scientifically validity.
As Dave already noted, this thread is rather tiresome. It starts with you making some point based on flawed or otherwise baseless evidence. Then someone comes along and demonstrates this point. Then you completely ignore that discussion and instead move on to yet another point based on flawed or otherwise baseless evidence. It's rather annoying. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 07:40:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Where are the embedded videos?
Paul wins and Fox lies about it.
If they lie on live TV, why would they post the info on the web?
|
So it was just a call in poll, meaning it was utterly worthless and has no scientifically validity.
As Dave already noted, this thread is rather tiresome. It starts with you making some point based on flawed or otherwise baseless evidence. Then someone comes along and demonstrates this point. Then you completely ignore that discussion and instead move on to yet another point based on flawed or otherwise baseless evidence. It's rather annoying.
|
I am showing the media bias. Why would FOX present a poll if they were going to discount it? Did they discount it because the wrong guy won?
Another evidence was the Washington Times story about the debate; the article only talked about Thompson, who was not at the debate.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 08:09:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I am showing the media bias. Why would FOX present a poll if they were going to discount it? Did they discount it because the wrong guy won? |
Again, it was a call-in poll and so it had no validity. The pundits are free to say what they want about the poll. While Hannity or whomever may not support Ron Paul, as a pundit he can certainly express that.
| Another evidence was the Washington Times story about the debate; the article only talked about Thompson, who was not at the debate. |
How is this "proof" of media bias? You're assuming that their focus should have been on how Ron Paul won an unscientific and largely worthless call-in poll claiming he "won" the debate?
I'd agree that our media are pretty vapid when it comes to political coverage. If we'd gotten real discussion of the substance of what the candidates were saying from our media, perhaps we'd have a different President right now and the world would be a better place. Either way, though, you'd be hard-pressed to show that the media's vapidity is all part of an anti-Ron Paul plot. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 08:28:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I am showing the media bias. |
Nah, you're only showing the bias of right-wing media outlets against Ron Paul, which is no surprise at all. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 19:11:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I am showing the media bias. |
Nah, you're only showing the bias of right-wing media outlets against Ron Paul, which is no surprise at all.
|
True, but that is was is relevant at this point in the election cycle.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 19:17:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
| Another evidence was the Washington Times story about the debate; the article only talked about Thompson, who was not at the debate. |
How is this "proof" of media bias? You're assuming that their focus should have been on how Ron Paul won an unscientific and largely worthless call-in poll claiming he "won" the debate? |
No, the article should have talked about what the people in the debate said. An article presented as an article about the debate that talks about the guy not in the debate is showing bias.
I'd agree that our media are pretty vapid when it comes to political coverage. If we'd gotten real discussion of the substance of what the candidates were saying from our media, perhaps we'd have a different President right now and the world would be a better place. Either way, though, you'd be hard-pressed to show that the media's vapidity is all part of an anti-Ron Paul plot.
|
There was substance by at least one candidate. Maybe next time you should watch the debate instead of deciding what was said based on what you think they said. What are you basing your opinion on?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 19:46:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
No, the article should have talked about what the people in the debate said. An article presented as an article about the debate that talks about the guy not in the debate is showing bias. |
In an ideal world, yes. I hope we can convince our media to agree with you.
I'd agree that our media are pretty vapid when it comes to political coverage. If we'd gotten real discussion of the substance of what the candidates were saying from our media, perhaps we'd have a different President right now and the world would be a better place. Either way, though, you'd be hard-pressed to show that the media's vapidity is all part of an anti-Ron Paul plot.
|
There was substance by at least one candidate. Maybe next time you should watch the debate instead of deciding what was said based on what you think they said. What are you basing your opinion on? |
Perhaps you should learn some reading comprehension skills, Jerome. I'm honestly getting sick of your crap. Here's what I said-- read it closely: the media are vapid and don't discuss "the substance of what the candidates were saying." That's the quote. Ask an adult or someone fluent in English to parse it out for you if you're having trouble. Indeed, there was most certainly substance. Too bad our media haven't been reporting it for years.
I'll expect you to retract your comments and apologize for your insinuations. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 09/07/2007 : 20:00:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist I'm honestly getting sick of your crap. Here's what I said-- read it closely: the media are vapid and don't discuss "the substance of what the candidates were saying." That's the quote. Ask an adult or someone fluent in English to parse it out for you if you're having trouble. Indeed, there was most certainly substance. Too bad our media haven't been reporting it for years.
I'll expect you to retract your comments and apologize for your insinuations.
|
I does look as if I was mistaken and was "reading into" your comments.
You have some nerve asking for an apology whist insulting me.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 20:13:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Cuneiformist I'm honestly getting sick of your crap. Here's what I said-- read it closely: the media are vapid and don't discuss "the substance of what the candidates were saying." That's the quote. Ask an adult or someone fluent in English to parse it out for you if you're having trouble. Indeed, there was most certainly substance. Too bad our media haven't been reporting it for years.
I'll expect you to retract your comments and apologize for your insinuations.
|
I does look as if I was mistaken and was "reading into" your comments.
You have some nerve asking for an apology whist insulting me. |
Eeek. You're right. It's hard to claim the high road when you aren't taking the high road. So I apologize for being a bit too juvenile in my comments. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2007 : 20:38:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Eeek. You're right. It's hard to claim the high road when you aren't taking the high road. So I apologize for being a bit too juvenile in my comments.
|
No sweat. I thought is was humorous.
Listen (read); please understand that I enjoy thinking. This is why I am here. There are no ulterior motives. I am honest in my thoughts and enjoy others; such as yourself, challenging my thoughts. I have no need of backslapping. I do this with myself all the time. Most here think differently than I; divergent ideas and questions expose their thinking. I thrive on others thoughts and reasonings. This allows me to examine my own thoughts and reasonings. This is the simple point of my presence here. I hope you understand.
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Media Ignores Straw Poll Winner
