Yes, because you know, everybody – but especially those evil white oppressor Republican men – should change their everyday use of idiomatic speech because of Lynddie England. :rolleyes:
Nothing cracks me up harder on a Saturday morning than liberals complaining about piddly crap like this after the extraordinarily personal and hurtful commentary that’s been made toward Mary Cheney once it was determined that she was “part of the campaign” and therefore “fair game.” Sauce for the goose, y’all. Sauce for the goose.
Is it just me, or are some of the Rabid Right (the SDMB version of Loony Leftists-not ALL conservatives/right wingers here are “rabid”), begun a trend of calling anyone they disagree with “retarded” lately?
First Brutus, now milroyj. What is this, fourth grade?
Ahhh…women! Can’t live with them, zero population growth without them!
I almost want Kerry to get into office just for the pure entertainment value of seeing what will come out of THK’s mouth on a day to day basis. I think Martha Mitchell will look like a wallflower by comparison.
I’m just responding in kind. In another thread, Equipoise twice referred to “pansy-assed Republicans”, which either makes her a homophobe, a fourth-grader (Someone/thing I don’t like = gay :rolleyes: ), or both.
I was referring not to your own lack of posting reputable sources but to the hissyfit temper tantrum you threw here.
Meanwhile, a stronger case against the validity of the websites posted by Equipoise might attempt to refute the information posted there rather than summarily dismissing them out of hand.
I’m not holding anyone to any standard, but thanks for trying to put words in my mouth. I would clarify what I said, but my guess is you’d just try to paint me as enforcing something. milroyj is free to attempt to invalidate sources with one sentences as he likes; it harms me none. I just figure if he’s going to bother posting disagreeing with them he might as well take that extra five minutes and come up with something of substance, since wikipedia, for example, is not exactly the partisan world of things that bushlies.net is.
Like I said, I’m not going to bother to invalidate any trash that someone puts out. Out of 14 links, one was to wikpedia, but the rest were to bushlies.net, antiwar.com, iraqbodycount.net and other rot.
I wasn’t putting words in your mouth, I was asking a question. I’m sorry if it came across as snarky. Since I’ve seen two different threads where WND was slagged on today (without anyone even linking to them) I thought it appropos to ask, since you seemed to be suggesting that content trumps source.
What I’m suggesting (no worries on snarkiness - getting close to the election, etc. I was as guilty as you were.) is that when one posts several sources, it more behooves the disputing party to point out an error or two, or a case of obvious partisanship, than it does for same party to just say “those aren’t valid sources.” I’ve seen “nice try, but that cite is biased” many many many times in my time here, and when the disputing party is given a long list of cites, however questionable I might find them, I think at least addressing some of the content is better than just idly brushing it aside.
milroyj, since you have so astutely observed (in agreeing with me) that one of the cites was to a place not obviously partisan, perhaps you’d care to share what at the wikipedia site you found objectionable - since, of course, rather than reading down the list and tossing them out before reading them, as only the truly blindly partisan would do, you actually read a sampling of each.
Why bother? No really, would you read a link to JeanFrancoisKerrylies.com? What’s the point? It’s blathering nonsense, whichever side it comes from, and it must be dismissed summarily. But posters like Equipoise act like it’s the gospel truth. That’s what I don’t understand.
I get email updates from the AFA. I recognize the vast bulk of the words in them as being deliberately (and often dishonestly) slanted toward a particular goal I have not supported in several years, if I ever did. Their conclusions are often (IMHO, anyway:)) suspect if not off and their manner of argument usually leaves something to be desired.
I read every update I get. Know why? I’ll tell you. It’s because it’s good to know what the other side is up to. It’s good to know what arguments they’re using, where they’re getting their information, what they know and what they don’t know. So if something is a non-trivial source of information for a group of people, I’d say it’s worth a look regardless of how much drivel you think it amounts to.
I’ll read (assuming I had time - sometimes I’ll read a thread in the minute before I leave to go to class or a meeting, and I can’t spare five minutes to get a good look at something) at least the first link to JohnKerryisaFrenchFuckface.com, especially if I see multiple people honestly citing it. (And if I don’t, feel free to call me on it.)
That way, instead of dismissing it as partisan BS, I know A) the arguments being used, B) where I think they fall short and C) what others see as being facts that might not be the case from where I stand. That lends itself much more to coming at least to agree to disagree, rather than just trading partisan potshots, and at least the first can often be said to be fighting ignorance.
