The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: franksolich on October 13, 2012, 07:24:34 PM
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2487927
Oh my.
I thought I'd check things out in the old DU, the obsolete DU.
I'd expected to see the brain-damaged primitive there, even though he's been at the new DU, but he's not on the first page anywhere; the first page seems totally dominated by the "No Elephants" primitive now.
The old DU's obviously on its way into oblivion.
No Elephants (1000+ posts) Fri Oct-12-12 11:49 PM
Original message
A Modest Proposal About Presidential Debates-A new rule
The Commission on Presidential Debates presents networks with all kinds of rules that are mostly designed to hide from viewers as much about the candidates as is humanly possible, without making it overly obvious that anything is being hidden.
At least two books have been written relatively recently about this.
Now, though, outright lying during the debate seems to have become a "thing." Ryan, for example, cited six studies that supposedly supported one of his claims.
Turns out one was the Heritage Foundation, one was the Wall Street Journal and one was--wait for it--a blog post. I don't recall the other three.
Would it be relevant to voters that the Heritage Foundation is a rightist think tank, not some independent organization or some government organization?
Would it be relevant to voters that the Wall Street Journal was the other "study?"
Dunno, but those things were sure relevant to me.
Moreover, if lying and massive overstatement have found their way into Presidential debates, with factcheckers being disparaged, too, will it be long before all candidates start using the same techniques?
IOW, I think it possible that Presidential debates will turn into total crapfests, to the further detriment of our country and the 99%.
One way to at try to put some brakes on this: a new rule
If you mention outside sources during a debate as authority for your statements, be it a book, a study, a government document
or whatever, you must provide a copy to the moderator after the debate and the moderator must make the information public.
Yeah, that would be nice, if Barack Milhous and Joe Bidet would do it.
Only one really really obscure primitive riff-raff responded.
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2487927
Oh my.
I thought I'd check things out in the old DU, the obsolete DU.
I'd expected to see the brain-damaged primitive there, even though he's been at the new DU, but he's not on the first page anywhere; the first page seems totally dominated by the "No Elephants" primitive now.
The old DU's obviously on its way into oblivion.
Yeah, that would be nice, if Barack Milhous and Joe Bidet would do it.
Only one really really obscure primitive riff-raff responded.
Conservative riff-raff here,-------Read my Lips, no New Taxes.
-
No Elephants (1000+ posts) Fri Oct-12-12 11:49 PM
Original message
A Modest Proposal About Presidential Debates-A new rule
The Commission on Presidential Debates presents networks with all kinds of rules that are mostly designed to hide from viewers as much about the candidates as is humanly possible, without making it overly obvious that anything is being hidden.
At least two books have been written relatively recently about this.
Now, though, outright lying during the debate seems to have become a "thing." Ryan, for example, cited six studies that supposedly supported one of his claims.
Turns out one was the Heritage Foundation, one was the Wall Street Journal and one was--wait for it--a blog post. I don't recall the other three.
Would it be relevant to voters that the Heritage Foundation is a rightist think tank, not some independent organization or some government organization? Would it be relevant that the so called fact checkers are all part of liberal biased orgs?
Would it be relevant to voters that the Wall Street Journal was the other "study?" See my last statement dummy
Dunno, but those things were sure relevant to me. relevant to me too!
Moreover, if lying and massive overstatement have found their way into Presidential debates, with factcheckers being disparaged, wonder why? too, will it be long before all candidates start using the same techniques? they should!
IOW, I think it possible that Presidential debates will turn into total crapfests, to the further detriment of our country and the 99%.
One way to at try to put some brakes on this: a new rule
If you mention outside sources during a debate as authority for your statements, be it a book, a study, a government document
or whatever, you must provide a copy to the moderator after the debate and the moderator must make the information public.
Dummies don't like studies that prove the truth if the truth does not agree with their version of truth. Suck it dummies!!! The liberal MSM bias has been exposed for all to see. Sucks to be you.
-
No Elephants (1000+ posts) Fri Oct-12-12 11:49 PM
Original message
A Modest Proposal About Presidential Debates-A new rule
The Commission on Presidential Debates presents networks with all kinds of rules that are mostly designed to hide from viewers as much about the candidates as is humanly possible, without making it overly obvious that anything is being hidden.
At least two books have been written relatively recently about this.
Now, though, outright lying during the debate seems to have become a "thing." Ryan, for example, cited six studies that supposedly supported one of his claims.
Turns out one was the Heritage Foundation, one was the Wall Street Journal and one was--wait for it--a blog post. I don't recall the other three.
Would it be relevant to voters that the Heritage Foundation is a rightist think tank, not some independent organization or some government organization?
Would it be relevant to voters that the Wall Street Journal was the other "study?"
Dunno, but those things were sure relevant to me.
Moreover, if lying and massive overstatement have found their way into Presidential debates, with factcheckers being disparaged, too, will it be long before all candidates start using the same techniques?
IOW, I think it possible that Presidential debates will turn into total crapfests, to the further detriment of our country and the 99%.
One way to at try to put some brakes on this: a new rule
If you mention outside sources during a debate as authority for your statements, be it a book, a study, a government document
or whatever, you must provide a copy to the moderator after the debate and the moderator must make the information public.
Speaking of blogs and the like. I know of a website where one of the members will post a lie then the others will spread it like gospel because it was posted at the website. I'm trying to think of the name of the website. It's "liar" something. Well, it's not really "liar" but it's a word that means same thing as liar. And then there is another word with the first. It is "under" something or other. Maybe I'll think of it later.
-
I love it when DUmmies propose new rules for things they have no control over. It's so cute.
-
I love it when DUmmies propose new rules for things they have no control over. It's so cute.
"Propose" is too weak of a word.
The primitives demand, not suggest or propose.
-
The more I think about it I think this primitive may be on to something. I've got a new rule to suggest.
Anytime a Obama or Biden says something they have to end it with: and the members of DU, a website whose members are a perfect example of the democrat party and what you'll be getting if you vote for me, agrees with what I've said. You should visit them at Democraticunderground.com and see for yourself.
-
I love it when DUmmies propose new rules for things they have no control over. It's so cute.
Oh Please...
Primitive, you know as well as I do that the only people who this rule would impact are the Rethugs. Take the VP debate for example.
Ryan says something, and is hammered by both Biden and the moderator for details, and then hammered more to provide details about the details. Whereas Biden says something, then cites 'National Security' to avoid talking about it any further - and that is accepted and the topic dropped.
-
I've got a new rule to suggest.
I've got one too.
Every time a primitive says "Romney lied" or "Romney lies," the primitive has to tell what the lie is.
-
I've got one too.
Every time a primitive says "Romney lied" or "Romney lies," the primitive has to tell what the lie is.
I think we'll be waiting until judgement day to hear that. I'm still not sure of the lies George W. Bush was claimed to have told.
-
I've got one too.
Every time a primitive says "Romney lied" or "Romney lies," the primitive has to tell what the lie is.
And what the trurh actually is, with legit sources.
-
And what the trurh actually is, with legit sources.
I dunno; I'd be satisfied with the primitive simply telling what the lie is.
But damn it, all the primitives say is "Romney lied" or "Romney lies," and nothing more than that.
-
I dunno; I'd be satisfied with the primitive simply telling what the lie is.
But damn it, all the primitives say is "Romney lied" or "Romney lies," and nothing more than that.
It's as if they demand that you accept their "Romney Lied" argument based on their self-described "brillaince." :whatever: ::)
-
The Heritage Foundation - while certainly conservative - is one of the most respected there is. If they indeed wrote a white paper on something, their facts are unimpeachable.
I dare the misfits to attempt to do so.
-
The Heritage Foundation - while certainly conservative - is one of the most respected there is. If they indeed wrote a white paper on something, their facts are unimpeachable.
I dare the misfits to attempt to do so.
It isn`t truthout or alternet so it can`t be right. </DUmmythink>
Honestly they are so ridiculous when it comes to the hysterics they have about things.
90% of their "sources" are other liberal blogs. ::)
-
Wikipedia FTW! :whatever:
-
Wikipedia FTW! :whatever:
No shit Sherlock! We all know that an encyclopedia that anyone can change facts on has to be the gospel, right? DUmmies is so predictable in their Bull Shit.
Fact checking is like the plague to DUmmies. Too bad it's not as lethal.