The Conservative Cave

Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Ralph Wiggum on March 15, 2014, 12:44:13 PM

Title: DUmmies discuss trustworthy websites
Post by: Ralph Wiggum on March 15, 2014, 12:44:13 PM
A completely comical circle-jerk of a thread, check some of these posts out:

Quote
bobthedrummer (23,555 posts)

A DU trusted websites thread to challenge the so called "reality based community" operatives (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024664723)


Here are a few of mine-add your own
Cryptome
http://cryptome.org

The National Security Archive
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv

The Center for Media and Democracy PR Watch
http://www.prwatch.org

The Federation of American Scientists
http://www.fas.org

Of course I'm highly biased, lol.

Add some of your trusted websites to this thread.

Quote
1000words (2,328 posts)
1. Is porn allowed?

(http://www.democraticunderground.com/emoticons/evilgrin.gif)

Quote
WilliamPitt (56,481 posts)
2. . . . . . .

http://www.truth-out.org


http://buzzflash.com

Quote
SidDithers (31,549 posts)
8. Sorry, truthout thinks Mercola is credible, but Dr. Paul Offit is suspect...

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/20053-lyme-disease-community-blows-the-whistle-on-corruption-within-the-cdc

IMO, anybody presenting Joseph Mercola's opinion as credible shouldn't be considered a trusted news site.

Sid

Quote
Cali_Democrat (19,506 posts)
13. Truth out?

(http://www.zhaodeco.com/public_files/prodyn_img/img_2-555_smile_lol.png)

I linked them before and learned my lesson.

 :lol: :bwah: :bitchslap:

Quote
bobthedrummer (23,555 posts)
3. .

Bishop Accountability
http://bishopaccountability.org

Consortium News
http://www.consortiumnews.com

Boiling Frogs
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com

Fire Dog Lake
http://www.firedoglake.com

Mind Justice
http://mindjustice.org

Quote
hfojvt (33,791 posts)
7. you trust firedoglake?

ruh-oh.

For myself, I tend to "trust" no one.

For example, a fairly recent article in Mother Jones expressed support for the accursed payroll tax cut.

Something you can perhaps infer that I am against, considering what I always call it.

It's not that I will never change my mind, or find out I was wrong about something.

But to "trust" Mother Jones, sounds like I would have to say "MJ says it, I believe it, that settles it."

Instead, I would like to think my opinions are based on facts and reasons. Before I change them, I need better facts and better reasons, and NOT just a statement from a "trusted source".

Quote
BainsBane (24,122 posts)
15. The National Security Archive is reality based

as are many of those others. I call myself evidence-based. Documentation or evidence is important in establishing any argument. It's not simply a function of believing one story or another. It's examining what the evidence shows. The National Security Archives has thousands of documents released through Freedom of Information Act Requests and is housed at George Washington U.

The question then becomes what do you do with that evidence and does your analysis make sense? You aren't going to be able to put together a convincing case that aliens or the Koch Brothers stole the Malaysian airliner, the moon was bombed, or some similar nonsense, but you will find a great deal of documentation on some other things, like US intervention in Latin American throughout much of the twentieth century. You have to be clear about what you can and can't know from the evidence available, and sometimes you just have to realize you aren't going to be some things you can't know.

One example comes to mind. Someone posted a thread claiming that the Malaysian airliner was "stolen" by somebody. They then linked to an article in Forbes arguing that it could have landed on a highway. There was zero evidence that the plane had been stolen, and in fact Forbes never suggested it was. The person saw that piece and concocted a story from his own imagination rather than based on evidence or even the speculation in Forbes. The problem was not that the information about how a plane might have landed was bad, but rather than it didn't prove what he claimed.

So I repeat, the issue is not whether the version of events is espoused by the White House or some foreign government, but what one can reasonably know with the evidence at hand.

Quote
LuvNewcastle (6,212 posts)
19. Here's one I always trust.

http://billmoyers.com/

I've never heard of 90% of the sites the DUmmies are discussing. :mental:
Title: Re: DUmmies discuss trustworthy websites
Post by: Carl on March 15, 2014, 01:21:20 PM
Quote
BainsBane (24,122 posts)
15. The National Security Archive is reality based

as are many of those others. I call myself evidence-based. Documentation or evidence is important in establishing any argument. It's not simply a function of believing one story or another. It's examining what the evidence shows...

Well DDumbass,evidence proves the vast majority of men are not predators or rapists.
Guess that makes you either stupid or a liar.
Actually evidence proves you are both.
Title: Re: DUmmies discuss trustworthy websites
Post by: thundley4 on March 15, 2014, 02:52:58 PM
No DUmmies mentioned these two sites?

Bullshit. (http://www.barackobama.com/#get-the-facts)

Even more bullshit. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/)
Title: Re: DUmmies discuss trustworthy websites
Post by: GOBUCKS on March 15, 2014, 03:43:03 PM
What a crock.

No one even mentioned East County Magazine.
Title: Re: DUmmies discuss trustworthy websites
Post by: obumazombie on March 15, 2014, 07:54:40 PM
What ???
Rolling Stones didn't make the cut ???
Title: Re: DUmmies discuss trustworthy websites
Post by: FlaGator on March 15, 2014, 09:05:32 PM
I didn't seen NewsMax or Townhall in those lists.
Title: Re: DUmmies discuss trustworthy websites
Post by: Big Dog on March 15, 2014, 09:12:35 PM
No love among the primitives for the Conservative Cave.

I was sure we'd make the list!

 :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
Title: Re: DUmmies discuss trustworthy websites
Post by: wasp69 on March 15, 2014, 09:13:26 PM
Quote

BainsBane (24,122 posts)
15. 

I call myself evidence-based. Documentation or evidence is important in establishing any argument. It's not simply a function of believing one story or another. It's examining what the evidence shows.

I truly cannot believe this DUmbass had the nerve to post that...
Title: Re: DUmmies discuss trustworthy websites
Post by: 98ZJUSMC on March 15, 2014, 09:17:11 PM

I've never heard of 90% of the sites the DUmmies are discussing. :mental:

I've "heard" of firedoglake, but none of the others.  What?  The (D)Ummies don't trust Puffington Blow and the dAilYkOOk!?!?

Truthout  :rofl:  The (D)Ummies sure don't forget that, Drunken TrustBum.  Even 24 business hours later.

Quote
BainsBane (24,122 posts)
15.  I call myself evidence-based.   :whatever:  Documentation or evidence is important in establishing any argument. It's not simply a function of believing one story or another. It's examining what the evidence shows.  ...as long as it agrees with my preconceived notions

Title: Re: DUmmies discuss trustworthy websites
Post by: thundley4 on March 15, 2014, 09:18:20 PM
No Breitbart? WTF?
Title: Re: DUmmies discuss trustworthy websites
Post by: obumazombie on March 15, 2014, 09:32:20 PM
DUmmies don't have lack of nerve, they have lack of shame or guilt.
Title: Re: DUmmies discuss trustworthy websites
Post by: delilahmused on March 16, 2014, 03:06:44 AM
Keef doesn't have a website?

Cindie
Title: Re: DUmmies discuss trustworthy websites
Post by: Skul on March 16, 2014, 04:14:32 AM
I didn't see alter-reality dot net.
Mommyjones wasn't in there either.  I thought both were supper-supper reality based.