What I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a long posting career.
Are you Liam Neeson? If so you should make a Taken 3.
Yes, a child can detect sarcasm. A child can also distinguish between someone who acknowledges an error and someone who perpetually argues in circles and from false premises.
I don’t speak for anyone on this board but myself, and should not be taken to task for their words. If you’re dismayed at the ire expressed at conservatives, then lay as much of that at my feet as you think you can justify. If I’ve called anyone’s words “useless drivel”, or said “you got nuthin’”, or accused them of “juvenile tactics”, it’ll be news to me.
Pssst! Can you help me with the crib sheet?
The problem is that when I look at the points that **adaher **makes there is more than just plain ignorance. As I pointed out, when people like Evil Captor says that they made a mistake it is more than just a correction, it is an acknowledgement that the mistake will not be made again. adaher doubles down on the mistakes, denying that there is anything wrong.
In the case of the lawsuit against Obama and the dreamers from ICE, Kris Kobach, the attorney who represented the agents is someone that any GOP member that does not want to have the racist label applied to the party should had dumped yesterday.
But for a lawyer that is not the most important thing, what is important is that any lawyer that is not a birther should had realized as other experts did that thanks to the area where the lawsuit was made or the focus of** it was bound to fail**. There was really no merit there, now the judge that dismissed the lawsuit for those reasons reported that it was more likely to succeed in a different setting, but then one has to wonder why it was not made that way. Anyhow, even if it was thrown out and it was clear that there was no merit there **adaher **still continues to declare that it had.
That is how he remains wrong, and there is no ire on telling him that he is wrong on the legal front, but one has to remember that he should not tell us that is raining when they are peeing on us; as I pointed before many times in the past, even to you, there would not be much to complain about laws that pressure immigrants when the enforcers of the law are fair. However, ignoring the racism of who is pushing for and funding a misguided effort is to ignore the ire that is behind the ones pushing that and other obstructionists efforts in the name of prejudice.
So address the disparity - when you see a liberal claim that you can debunk, do so with vigorous anger and righteous indignation and maybe call somebody a cocksucker. If you’re too lazy, why should others do it for you?
Agreed. Although I’d point out that Evil Captor is still seeking to defend his point in the GD trhread, rather than just acknowledging his OP was flawed.
But your overall point is very fair. adaher appears invulnerable to having any particular lesson in reasoning sink in, and in that he is virtually sui generis here.
My strongest reaction to your OP is to suggest to you the most obvious conclusion is that you should reexamine your underlying assumptions, and try harder to get your facts straight. But especially, reexamine your underlying assumptions. (Nuke the site from orbit; it’s the only way to be sure.)
Agreed, nothing undermines credibility as much as being clearly wrong and failing to acknowledge the error.
Part of it has to do with being on the wrong end of the political scpectrum. This board suffers libheral idiots a lot better than it suffers conservative ones. On the one hand it really improves the quality of the conservatives around here, on the other thand, they’re still conservatives (ewww).
But part of it is the frequency with which you make extreme statements and then refuse to acknowledge when these statements are proven incorrect.
Conservative claims, in themselves, tend to be more vitriolic. The current make-up of the conservative movement in the U.S. is based on anger.
We liberals tried to match “hate radio” airtime with the conservatives. Air America didn’t work out too well, because we just don’t do hatred with the same chop-licking (and logic-chopping) vitriol. We don’t have a Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter. We have a few minor applicants for the role…and, by and large, we don’t listen to them.
The error of “The Republicans want to ban all pornography” is way out in the fourth decimal place. The error of “Obama deliberately killed the Ambassador to Libya” is right there in the first decimal place. The latter is vastly more vitriolic, and thus the responses to it are also more acrid.
You’re acting mad because we don’t hate John Stewart as much as we hate Rush Limbaugh. Perhaps that’s because John makes an effort to be a lot nicer than Rush does.
First, take the baby out of the crib, then spread the sheet over…
You need ire and vigor directed at a liberal by other liberals for their posting Bricker? Let me introduce you to the wonder of Tralfamidor…
Does Politifact check every utterance and tally the right things he says? Of course not. They check the things that sound fishy. So if you make 1000 statements a day, 10 of them sound fishy, and 5 of those are false, you can hardly say that 5 false statements out of 1000 makes you a compulsive liar.
I lack the patience to read pages 2 and 3. If this has been covered, then I apologize.
To answer your question, there are different varietals of being wrong and I don’t take seriously information sources that don’t care about the facts and don’t correct themselves. To be specific, when I see a Michael Moore film I laugh, but I take care not to treat his work as factual. Because I don’t consider him a reliable source. Ditto for the late Christopher Hitchens and Saletin of Slate magazine. If I have to read those sources, I take it really slow.
Different varietals: those who fabricate evidence deserve condemnation. Those who constantly screw up their facts deserve contempt. Those who occasionally mess up their facts and endeavor to correct themselves when they slip up gain my respect. Those who are pig-headed but will correct themselves after 5 pages of debate may receive a sigh, but occasionally will receive constructive mockery from me.
Your posts waste my fucking time adaher. You are a bullshit artist. I usually start off with a slight muddling of facts but I check them and adjust accordingly before I post. I’ve gone back and forth with you and I find that a factual correction is too often met with you blowing more suppositions out of your posterior. Now look: bullshit artistry requires a certain degree of intelligence. You got that, at least in a minimal way. It’s also fucking rude in this context, namely because you can make shit up faster than I can track things down.
Look, I respect Bricker and I’ve even enjoyed conversations with Sam Stone. And you can see that the journalists above that I criticize and evade trend left. So it’s not a liberal/conservative thing, at least for me.
Also BobLibDem makes a good point about selection bias.
Christopher Hitchens was lefty? Ewwww.
Christopher Hitchens had various oddball political beliefs:
From wikipedia: Hitchens went to the United States in 1981, as part of an editor exchange program between The New Statesman and the The Nation.[25] After joining The Nation, he penned vociferous critiques of Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and American foreign policy in South and Central America.[26][27][28][29][30][31][32] He became a contributing editor of Vanity Fair in 1992,[33] writing ten columns a year. He left The Nation in 2002 after profoundly disagreeing with other contributors over the Iraq War…He became a media fellow at the [center-right -ed, mfm] Hoover Institution in September 2008.[37] I parted company with Hitchens well before 2002 though (maybe 1998, though frankly I never followed him closely). Given his ideological meanderings though perhaps that wasn’t the best example.
The OP should request a name change, either to Dr. Soong (Noonian, often wrong) or Dr. Burns (Maj. Frank, always wrong).
I’m sorry, but while he apparently self-identified as liberal, the bulk of his posting in that thread (at least what I have read so far) reflects a very free-market-friendly world view, so much so that people take him to task and he reminds everyone at least once that his OP started out being critical of the GOP.
In short: it seems to me that he was unpopular precisely because his views were not liberal enough.
Perhaps there are other examples which would change my mind.
There are any number of people who believe that the magic of free market economics teamed up with a business friendly environment is the clear path to all of our progressive agenda. I am one of those who finds the proposition dubious. But such persons are free to label themselves “liberals”, if they so choose.