Not really, that is not what I said at all, I do look at various sources and can choose what side I want to take and will debate that point. But then there is always the next time where I will choose the other side and debate that. Could win both ways which shows how much others are unprepared to defend a position. But that has nothing to do with my personal beliefs which necessarily contain parts of both to arrive at how I conduct myself.



But your content is your character and has serious flaws. You post content that you are unable to defend with sources that are of question and then get your panties all in a twist when you are challenged. Your responses turn quickly into a pissing contest and is an immense source of fun for myself.



So you take something from someone else and make it your own by agreeing with it. Then when challenged, you get offended and personal and then are surprised when a counter comes in using the same vernacular.

And what is the purpose of research if it is unimportant, that would just be ignorant. Semantics and philosophical issues are that whole purpose of research, how can you ignore them and pretend you have done research. How can that be nonsense?



And my offer for a nice glass of grapefruit juice stands.

Hatred, no just realist. Odumbo is so much more descriptive of that imposter. But then those rose colored glasses keeps one from seeing reality.





And you can't see any of this.

Folks, the OP of this thread is politically neutral.
It simply emphasizes the need to check the sources of whatever information that you decide to pass on to others.

Plenty of false urban legends are promoted because people rely on faulty sources.

People who promote false urban legends don't like it when the false urban legends are fact-checked.

Oh yes, that would fill me full of confidence, being supported by someone claiming to be a "Dodo".

Ah, more ad hominem.

Oh yes...

I didn't make anything my own

I posted an article AND its source

it was a neutral article, others read their own prejudices into what was actually stated

and thread topics are not meant to be personal character assessments,,

that's called making it 'personal' which is allegedly unwelcome in these forums,,,

we would never get through a topic if it was open as a venue to assess the 'character' of the one posting,,,

Wow, and how do you arrive at this, another tactic like using the race card?

"ad ho•mi•nem (æd ˈhɒm ə nəm, -ˌnɛm)
adj.
1. appealing to one's prejudice, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering an argument.
adv.
3. in an ad hominem manner.
[< Latin: literally, to the man]"

This is but another of the liberals fallacies, when you have no argument, resort to the emotions. And then when challenged, say that the challenge is ad hominem when in truth it is but the only response that could be had. That comes when an argument has no logic or reason.

What msharmony says above is correct.

The OP simply mentions the need to check sources.
It doesn't address any particular political topic.
Yet, others decided to rant against the OP for no just cause. Go figure.

The OP is a liberal lefist socialist (saying it three times makes it stick). The source of the OP is a journlist that wrote some crap that has no merit but was believed by the OP.

And the source is not really politically neutral as it has itself discovered. It bases its results on polls from phone surveys but has discovered that less than 1 in 10 people either answer the phone or will conduct the survey, hence very skewed results.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/05/survey_bias_how_can_we_trust_opinion_polls_when_so_few_people_respond_.html

And the fact checker sites, the majority have a left leaning staff and so the results tend to be skewed also.

Not really, I didn't give you that name, you did. Just quoting facts, not using a dodge.

Sure you did, you posted it. But then that is your standard modus operandi, do or say something and then claim it wasn't you.

Feels me full of confidence

So are you trying to insinuate that your "strawman" did it? A strawman is but a fiction and can't do anything.

Just like Odumbo, not responsible for anything, must of been someone else. I know, Bush did it.

what was posted was an article and a source,,,,not too hard to grasp, nothing really to debate

more attacks or personal assessment of a writer

instead of discussion of the content of the information they provide, is not a trait of logical debate

the article wasn't based on a poll, it was just an opinion from those in the reporting FIELD of sources which are possibly LESS Biased than other sources


none of which are advised as sole sources for review, as indicated in the final paragraph

'in order to get the best, most well-rounded view of an issue, people should read from multiple websites and news sources. While news outlets should strive to remain objective and keep their opinions out of reporting, that is not always the case. While these websites listed by the Times is a good start, consider reading from as many different viewpoints as possible. "

If the op wasn't meant to be political, why isn't it in an appropriate forum?

Like general BS or Chat-chit.
.

At least not from this side, but then I wasn't the OP.

the title of the thread is politics. CURRENT EVENTS< and NEWS

everything posted is not necessarily political, some of it is current event, and some if it is news

this article is a CURRENT aricle, and it relates to any topic where people are known to be fooled with the belief that if they read it online its true,,,

I happen to observe the phenomenon most often in the politics thread, so the topic was relevant in more than one way,,