Single-payer health care plan dies in Senate

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Morgeruat The fact that people like you disregard the information because of the source without bothering with the validity of the information is why I didn't source the article. I'd like to see you dispute ANY of the facts brought up.

Nice try. But the poultergeist is a big bag o' crazy all by herself. When crazy people talk you don't fact-check them, you smile politely and walk away. And I knew it was her because of how it became "dirty liberals" as opposed to "This is why healthcare doesn't work". As soon as I saw this I stopped reading.

[Morgeruat]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior Nice try. But the poultergeist is a big bag o' crazy all by herself. When crazy people talk you don't fact-check them, you smile politely and walk away. And I knew it was her because of how it became "dirty liberals" as opposed to "This is why healthcare doesn't work". As soon as I saw this I stopped reading.

Yup, ignore the facts because of the source, sounds a lot like the Glenn Beck thread. Say what you want about the source, but you can't refute the facts being presented.

Also, don't discount crazy people entirely, outside of their specific area of insanity they are often highly intelligent, very accurate, and well informed.

{edit}Seems I recall you or machinehead (I can't be arsed to check) taking Cerek to task for daring to speak ill of Gore's court certified falsehoods because he hadn't personally viewed it, and the same with your precious links. Yet you expect to get away with dismissing true facts (as opposed to Gore's manufactured ones) based on a source you don't like? I'm seeing flashbacks of every Michael Moore thread EVER discussed here. *ROFLMFAO*

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Morgeruat Yup, ignore the facts because of the source, sounds a lot like the Glenn Beck thread. Say what you want about the source, but you can't refute the facts being presented. Also, don't discount crazy people entirely, outside of their specific area of insanity they are often highly intelligent, very accurate, and well informed. {edit}Seems I recall you or machinehead (I can't be arsed to check) taking Cerek to task for daring to speak ill of Gore's court certified falsehoods because he hadn't personally viewed it, and the same with your precious links. Yet you expect to get away with dismissing true facts (as opposed to Gore's manufactured ones) based on a source you don't like? I'm seeing flashbacks of every Michael Moore thread EVER discussed here. *ROFLMFAO*

Why do you guys always get super-pissed when we refute the words of well-known, polarizing, right-wing loons? I am no stranger to Poultergeist. She's the devil in a bad blonde wig. I've heard it all before, even read her book (she releases books seasonally). Yes, it was me berating Cerek for not experiencing the works of a person before you knock them. The difference here is that I have, and have made up my mind. I like to know what i'm talking about before I criticise. Same with Rush Limbaughs book - I've read that too. It reads very similiar to Coulter's, with the word "liberal" in a negative light on practically every page. These are all nutbags. Get someone plausable, maybe we'll take a look. In the meantime, let's not cry about it.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior Why do you guys always get super-pissed when we refute the words of well-known, polarizing, right-wing loons? I am no stranger to Poultergeist. She's the devil in a bad blonde wig. I've heard it all before, even read her book (she releases books seasonally). Yes, it was me berating Cerek for not experiencing the works of a person before you knock them. The difference here is that I have, and have made up my mind. I like to know what i'm talking about before I criticise. Same with Rush Limbaughs book - I've read that too. It reads very similiar to Coulter's, with the word "liberal" in a negative light on practically every page. These are all nutbags. Get someone plausable, maybe we'll take a look. In the meantime, let's not cry about it.

Technically, you didn't refute anything she said, you simply dismissed it because of the source. Those are two different issues.

I'm personally not a big fan of Limbaugh or Coulter either because they both destroy their own credibility with their over-the-top hate rhetoric towards liberals. In fact, I disagree with almost anything Limbaugh says just on general principal. Ann Coulter is only marginally better, but at least she does include facts and statistics in her article along with the obligatory rhetoric. Some are irrelevant (such as the case of the elderly couple that could both get a "boob job" if they wanted it) and others are questionable at best (I have serious doubts about African-Americans just having an inexplicably high infant-mortality rate).

However, a lot of what she says is not so easy to refute such as countries using different standards to determine infant mortality rate and cancer survival. These and several other facts in her article are legitimate points for discussion.

[Cerek]

Oh...and as for Gore's film....if anyone wants to send a copy to me, I'll be happy to watch and return it. It isn't available from the local movie store (we only have one) and I couldn't find it on hulu. I don't have a netflix account and have no desire to start one just to watch An Inconvenient Truth.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Cerek Technically, you didn't refute anything she said, you simply dismissed it because of the source. Those are two different issues. I'm personally not a big fan of Limbaugh or Coulter either because they both destroy their own credibility with their over-the-top hate rhetoric towards liberals. In fact, I disagree with almost anything Limbaugh says just on general principal. Ann Coulter is only marginally better, but at least she does include facts and statistics in her article along with the obligatory rhetoric. Some are irrelevant (such as the case of the elderly couple that could both get a "boob job" if they wanted it) and others are questionable at best (I have serious doubts about African-Americans just having an inexplicably high infant-mortality rate). However, a lot of what she says is not so easy to refute such as countries using different standards to determine infant mortality rate and cancer survival. These and several other facts in her article are legitimate points for discussion.

I never claimed to refute anything she said in this article, indeed, I said I saw the whole "stupid liberal" rheteoric, recognized the language and style, and then saw my suspicions confirmed. What I just said in my previous post was that I stopped reading it as soon as I saw that it "descended into hate" as someone put it earlier.

If he was so confident in this person and her PoV, why was she not named as the author? Not even a quote box and the original title and copywright were omitted. Bit shady if you ask me.

And yes, both her and Limbaugh are crazies. Same with Beck. They ARE polarizing people who make money saying outrageous things. The message is lost amongst their constant need for attention and fame. How are we expected to take these people seriously when they are so far to the right wing they almost have another party?

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Cerek Oh...and as for Gore's film....if anyone wants to send a copy to me, I'll be happy to watch and return it. It isn't available from the local movie store (we only have one) and I couldn't find it on hulu. I don't have a netflix account and have no desire to start one just to watch An Inconvenient Truth.

Like I said before, would it matter now? The difference between you and I is, I watch the work and make my mind up. Here, you did the reverse. Why would viewing the movie change the mind of someone who made it up before seeing it?

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Cerek Technically, you didn't refute anything she said, you simply dismissed it because of the source.

Oh wait, I see what you thought I meant. No, I did not read this article at all, for the reasons stated in the above post. I was talking generally, refuting the words of these people because they clearly have an agenda and don't care about the actual issue. So yeah, just clarifying.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior Like I said before, would it matter now? The difference between you and I is, I watch the work and make my mind up. Here, you did the reverse. Why would viewing the movie change the mind of someone who made it up before seeing it?

I felt the same way about Michael Moore and Bowling for Columbine. I found a site that listed in great detail the different ways he manipulated the message and, sometimes, just flat out changed it (like the famous "speech" by Heston in Denver was actually a splicing of two different speeches - he is even wearing different shirts).

So, while I decided the criticisms of Moore's film were accurate (and even found a couple the site missed), I still felt Moore made some decent points in his film. His message would have been made even stronger if he had not felt the need to deliberately alter and manipulate the information and things people said, but I did give him credit for having some valid points.

The same is probably true for Gore. However, unlike Moore, Gore's film has been proven in a court of law to contain several outright lies. This is a documented fact and viewing the movie won't make it any less of a fact.

I suspected Gore had used alarmist tactics and exaggerations in his film and these suspicions were confirmed by a British judge, who went on to say the film could be shown in British schools, but must be preceded with the disclaimer that it only presents one side of the argument and should be considered a political film rather than a documentary.

As you said before, there is no reason to be upset just because a source you like has been shown to be unreliable. I could very easily dismiss Gore's entire message, just as you choose to dismiss Coulter, Limbaugh and Beck. But I've agreed to watch the film to see if, like Moore, there are some valid points within the film as well.

Of course, you've already admitted you will still dismiss my comments on the film even after I watch it, so I realize it will be mostly an empty exercise on my part, but I will still do it if someone cares to send me the film.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Cerek As you said before, there is no reason to be upset just because a source you like has been shown to be unreliable. I could very easily dismiss Gore's entire message, just as you choose to dismiss Coulter, Limbaugh and Beck. But I've agreed to watch the film to see if, like Moore, there are some valid points within the film as well. Of course, you've already admitted you will still dismiss my comments on the film even after I watch it, so I realize it will be mostly an empty exercise on my part, but I will still do it if someone cares to send me the film.

Yes, it would be empty. You were stoically against it a year ago, and let's face it, only with much prodding and calling out, did you even come to consider watching said movie. And you still have not. It's cool, I mean, I am just pointing out the differences. I read Ann and Rush's books before I started criticizing them. A criticism that you share with me. So they must be doing something wrong. But like I said, that is the difference between us. As for finding the movie, try libraries, mine has it there. Or email Al Gore and ask for a free copy - he gives them away for free.

Comparing "Global Warming" to political pundent bias is apples and oranges IMO. This is not some left-wing theory he thought up. Yet much of what Coulter and Rush think up are right-wing theories or doctrines. In a nutshell, this is bigger than partisanship - yet for some reason (which I can only attribute to oil and lobbying), the USA has made it this way.