Will This Be The Next Obama Scandal?

[4est_4est_Gump]

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Yeah, well justice is supposed to be blind...or at least it was before Holder opened the Department of Just-Us.

I'm talking about the public. This "scandal" won't get traction because it involves the Koch Brothers, and all decent Americans hate them, and should. Of course they have the same legal rights as others, but defending those is their lawyers' business, and be sure they can afford some good ones.

 

[Que]

I'm talking about the public. This "scandal" won't get traction because it involves the Koch Brothers, and all decent Americans hate them, and should.

Why should us decent Americans hate them the way you un-American Soros fans do? ~puzzled~

 

[miles]

Did you notice how Reid's bodyguard jacked up that reporter yesterday for asking that same question?

Reid has his own goon squad.

 

[miles]

Originally Posted by KingOrfeo View Post
I'm talking about the public. This "scandal" won't get traction because it involves the Koch Brothers, and all decent Americans hate them, and should.

The cheese has definitely slipped of Oreo's cracker.

What an incredibly stupid statement.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Why should us decent Americans hate them the way you un-American Soros fans do? ~puzzled~

Because.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Did you notice how Reid's bodyguard jacked up that reporter yesterday for asking that same question?

No.

 

[Que]

Because.

Oh, because "rational" wiki is such a Bastian of tolerant thought. Liberals and communists are so sure about the validity of their ideas they have to have their own wiki for their "truths." As if Wikipedia isn't over-run with their ilk already.

Doesn't that embarrass you at all?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Oh, because "rational" wiki is such a Bastian of tolerant thought. Liberals and communists are so sure about the validity of their ideas they have to have their own wiki for their "truths." As if Wikipedia isn't over-run with their ilk already.

Doesn't that embarrass you at all?

No, because everything you said there is pure bullshit. About on the same level as Snopes-bashing. RationalWiki does not even pretend to aim at "tolerant" thought; its goal is to promote rational thought, which is a very different thing. (And Communism gets little love there, BTW.) And what's this crap about Wikipedia?!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Main_Page

 

[Que]

No, because everything you said there is pure bullshit. About on the same level as Snopes-bashing. RationalWiki does not even pretend to aim at "tolerant" thought; its goal is to promote rational thought, which is a very different thing. (And Communism gets little love there, BTW.) And what's this crap about Wikipedia?!

Figures you would love Snopes. You realize that the sum total of the Snopes "research department" is a husband and wife team with a pair of laptops sitting on their couch in front of the TV Googling shit for confirmation bias?

Kind of like what you do.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Where to study Austrian Economics

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Where_to_study_Austrian_Economics

Charles Koch Institute

 

[NeverEndingMe]

obama is a walking disaster ... just give it some water

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

obama is a walking disaster ... just give it some water

So he can walk on it?

 

[Sean]

Oh, because "rational" wiki is such a Bastian of tolerant thought. Liberals and communists are so sure about the validity of their ideas they have to have their own wiki for their "truths." As if Wikipedia isn't over-run with their ilk already.

Doesn't that embarrass you at all?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

 

[KingOrfeo]

Figures you would love Snopes

Love it? I trust it.

You realize that the sum total of the Snopes "research department" is a husband and wife team with a pair of laptops sitting on their couch in front of the TV Googling shit for confirmation bias?

Apparently that's enough. They've never made a serious mistake that I ever heard of.

As RationalWiki sez:

Snopes.com is a website founded by Barbara and David Mikkelson that dedicates itself to researching and confirming the truth behind . . . urban legends, chain e-mails, and other stories of uncertain origin. Some of this includes various forms of woo, religious stories, and myths about politicians (Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and Bill and Hillary Clinton all have their own sections).

Woo-pushers, the fringe on either end of the political spectrum, and those who benefit from these stories tend to dismiss Snopes as wrong or biased, despite research showing it isn't. To show that it really isn't biased or just plain cynical, a surprising number of myths actually turn out to be true (although usually in a much more mundane way than the chain letters imply).

Randomly browsing Snopes is a fun way to kill your day, right up there with TV Tropes and Cracked.

See also

Obama birth certificate controversy

query, your attitude here would seem to be of a piece with your rejection of peer-reviewed science. Accept it: There really are sources with a reliable grip on facts and reality, better than yours, even if they say things you don't like or refuse to believe, and you should listen to those sources.

 

[Sean]

Some gems from Conservapedia, if you want a laugh:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution

The Age of the Earth has been a matter of interest to humans for millennia. All verifiable evidence indicates that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. Yet with circular reasoning and implausible assumptions, liberals insist that the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 ± 1%).[2]
http://www.conservapedia.com/Age_of_the_Earth

The United Kingdom has lost the preeminence in the world that it enjoyed 100 years ago, due to its decline into Darwinism, atheism and socialism
http://www.conservapedia.com/United_Kingdom

 

[Que]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

Equally stupid, which is I wouldn't know it exists. If your ideas cannot withstand scrutiny in the marketplace of ideas, your ideas probably should be revisited.

A lot of what is labeled 'conservatism' is not. It isn't conservative to simply remove liberal indoctrination from the educational system and replace it with conservative indoctrination, just for an example.

 

[Sean]

Equally stupid, which is I wouldn't know it exists. If your ideas cannot withstand scrutiny in the marketplace of ideas, your ideas probably should be revisited.

A lot of what is labeled 'conservatism' is not. It isn't conservative to simply remove liberal indoctrination from the educational system and replace it with conservative indoctrination, just for an example.

Snopes is about as non-partisan as you can get. And I assume you're embarrassed about Conservapedia?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Oh hell no!

No bias here!

Conservapedia:What is going on at CP? - RationalWiki
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:What_is_going_on_at_CP%3F‎
Oct 3, 2014 ... Keep up to date with what is going on at the extremist blog Conservapedia with our rolling reports of the bizarre happenings there. We report ...

In their own words:

The first question is almost certainly “yes”. Subjects such as abortion, universal healthcare and separation of church and state get pretty liberal treatments (or, as we might prefer to say, don’t suffer right-wing distortions) in their respective articles. The editorship is also largely liberal leaning in the behind-the-scenes discussions. Being a largely international and diverse group (by internet standards, at least) there’s certainly a wider acceptance and discussion of gender, sexuality and social issues than you’d expect from non-liberal groups. Sure, everyone is a skeptical empiricist first, but in places where that doesn’t easily apply, the political stance is clearly to the progressive end of the spectrum.

The second question could most easily be answered with an issue of origins. Founded originally in response to Conservapedia – a wiki “encyclopaedia” written from “a conservative viewpoint” – it seems inevitable that the founding members, and subsequent style of RationalWiki would fall heavily to the left. But as simple as that is, it isn’t the full story. Conservapedia is extremely far right, even by American standards, and even back in the days when it was vaguely relevant. Responding and railing against Conservapedia would attract more than just the corresponding far-left; anyone close to the centre would be appalled by its twisted viewpoints, and religious conservatives would be shocked at Andrew Schlafly’s cherry picking and distorting of the Bible, culminating in his Conservative Bible Project – a project that was widely criticised by anyone who paid enough attention to it. Conservative Christians were as much flummoxed by Schlafly’s project as liberal atheists were.

So this alone cannot really say why RationalWiki attracts a liberal audience. Instead we have to look at a wider trend within the media where the conservative-liberal or left-right dynamics becomes increasingly polarised thanks to the echo chamber effect. In contrast to the past, where different views would be collided together in great shouting matches, the modern political sphere is heavily segregated into channels and environments that are held separate to each other. If you’re an American viewer with cable TV, you might want to note the small buffer of mindless, neutral programming held between the MSNBC and Fox News channels. So a slightly liberal environment in a young website is unlikely to attract a wide variety of further contributors from a moderate or conservative slant, even if they are critical of Conservapedia. The echo chamber is self-perpetuating.

 

[Que]

Love it? I trust it.



Apparently that's enough. They've never made a serious mistake that I ever heard of.

As RationalWiki sez:



query, your attitude here would seem to be of a piece with your rejection of peer-reviewed science. Accept it: There really are sources with a reliable grip on facts and reality, better than yours, even if they say things you don't like or refuse to believe, and you should listen to those sources.

"peer-reviewed" as I have explained repeatedly is meaningless in terms of the value a particular paper has. A peer-reviewed study showed that a large number of peer-reviewed studies were fabricated from whole cloth.

In Copernicus' day, the peer-reviewed science said he was wrong. Except he wasn't

Doesn't matter how many monkeys on how many typewriters agree with you. If your argument fails on its own merits at a glance, goggling twelve more "cites" is meaningless.

 

[Sean]

Doesn't matter how many monkeys on how many typewriters agree with you. If your argument fails on its own merits at a glance, goggling twelve more "cites" is meaningless.

So you don't believe in quantum mechanics then? Or relativity?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

These fuckers are brilliant:

But what about the mission and its relationship to politics? Stephen Colbert famously quipped “reality has a well-known liberal bias”, so does that explain the largely liberal positions held by those in the reality-based community? Is a liberal position justified through rationality?

So anything else is, of course....