• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Conservatives in General

no, we don't agree...as you're trying to make the very dishonest & pathetic insinuation that Obama is a Muslim extremist, like Al Qaeda.
When I review my words I made no assumption that he is a Muslim extremist. But we both agree that he did attend a Madrassa in Indonesia in his early youth. He is reported to have said that the Muslim call to prayer is the sweetest sound. Does that make him a Muslim extremist? Only if it makes all Muslims extremists.
 
No it wasn't. Media Matters is partisan and unreliable. Not that Fox is better.

The fact that this is even debated at this point is hilarious. Though the fact that the person here who complains the most about Media Matters(not you) also uses Newsbusters is even more hilarious.
 
I have shown where they are wrong. Why should I play our game? You're "target Audience" for that site... of course you think they have good info. It appeals to what you want to read.
You haven't shown a G-D thing MrV. The link I provided was to a video and there was nothing to read. What Media Matters does is to document what said, they do this with video, audio and very often with transcripts.
 
No it wasn't. Media Matters is partisan and unreliable. Not that Fox is better.
Sorry, but partisan does not equate to unreliable. You can be partisan but still tell the truth, Fox can't do that. I don't think many people care that much that they are conservative outlet, it the truth that they worry about.
 
We've all been to Media Matters, read their "facts", did our own research into "Who are these people, what are they doing this for and why" [...]
Which has zero to do with the accuracy of their reporting. But we already know that you refuse to judge them on their content, so why keep on posting your childishly illogical argument for all to laugh at? Logic that is equally fallacious to the conservative tactic of criticizing Obama simply because of the color of his skin, his parents, or the schools he attended as a child.

Were you the one that posted "facts are not as important as the message"? :shock: (as I refer to post #179, I see that you indeed are).

Now I realize that the faulty ad hominem, guilt-by-association logic you have been utilizing in this thread is routinely employed in right wing talk media (where I assume that some copy/parrot it), but am at a loss as to why conservatives on message boards such as this don't understand that is the very reason so many intelligent people laugh at it.

Your argument consists of, if Fox News says the world is flat, and Media Matters attacks Fox News for saying that the world is flat (and provides evidence or rational argument that the world is, indeed, round), then -- according to your logic, that Media Matters cannot be trusted due to their funding or whatever -- the world is, indeed, flat. I wish you many successful debates with that logic
 
Last edited:
[...] His apologists will claim that a Muslim run schools is not a Madrassa [...]
That's because the right wing definition of a madrassa is a terrorist training school -- which I have already clearly proven, making your repeated attempt to beat that dead propaganda horse, again, simply dumbfounding. I can only conclude that, in your version of reality, the world actually is flat.

Amazing.
 

The call to prayer is magnificent to listen to. I'd question your hearing ability if you denied it. That's from the fingers of a bad Catholic who also enjoys gregorian chants.
 
Last edited:
No it wasn't. Media Matters is partisan and unreliable. [...]
LOL... you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Since your opinion has been challenged, and you have refused to substantiate it (by providing examples of Media Matters unreliability), you are now simply spouting propaganda... making your opinion, and your posts, partisan and unreliable.

Imagine that.
 

Madrasah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Madrassa or Madrasa - What Is a Madrassa
Madrassa - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Madrassa - definition of Madrassa by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Madrassa: Definition with Madrassa Pictures and Photos

Madrassa is Arabic for school. It is frequently a school linked to a mosque.

Your conclusion? Its a strawman. Not to mention your constant attempt to tag it onto people that disagree with you is a pathetic way to debate.
 

If a site twists facts and reality to fit a political message for the hungry folks that desire such, why would anyone but those that "want" to be told their world view is correct bother with the site. They might get that the sky is blue, but they'll say its blue despite Conservative attempts to make it black with pollution and only the goodness of Progressive action keeps the sky blue. See, a kernel of truth invested into the subject.
 
Sorry, but partisan does not equate to unreliable. You can be partisan but still tell the truth, Fox can't do that. I don't think many people care that much that they are conservative outlet, it the truth that they worry about.
The word 'and' is a wonderful word. It is a conjunctive word, it allows you to tie to words together without having to say that one must follow the other.
 
[...] Madrassa is Arabic for school. It is frequently a school linked to a mosque. [...]
Madrassa is 'right wing' for 'terrorist'. While I would presume you are already aware of that (and question the intellectual honesty of your post on that unproven basis alone), the more important observation is why haven't you been keeping up?

 
Your posts are quite boring aren't they.

The wonderful thing about debate in a message board is it doesn't take place in a vacuum. Everybody knows the basic facts in an argument like this. I don't therefore have to trawl through Media Matters to satisfy you, and lets face it it won't satisfy you - you would simply tiresomely try and dismiss anything that made them look bad, to remind everyone that Media Matters is partisan and not always reliable. It is not worse than Fox, but only a fool would consider it a neutral and totally reliable information service on Fox News or any other topic.

Though I must say I can understand how you would think they were some prestige Media Think Tank with such stellar reporting as this;

Rachel Maddow Discusses Fox's History Of Fabricating Stories And FOXLEAKS | Media Matters for America

And how courageous of them to hold Fox accountable for using the term illegals, for illegal immigrants. That isn't a bloody stupid article at all;

NY Times Drops "Illegals," As Fox Continues To Cling To Slur | Media Matters for America

Or how about this, they made sure the reporter didn't get away with claiming the employment rate only went down in Ohio and a few other states, except of course a lot of the decline was people who stopped looking for work;

Fox's Hemmer Falsely Claims Only A "Few States" Have Seen Unemployment Drop | Media Matters for America

This is just a campaign piece for Obama;

2011: The Bush Economy Gets A Makeover | Media Matters for America

It states liberal economic views are basically unquestionable, they may be right but to serve them up as the obvious truth in a site that is supposed to hold the Media accountable is absurd. It also tiresomely implies blame for all the economic ills is on Bush.

I took this nonsense simply from links on their homepage. All it is is the same tired partisan stuff you get on Fox. No more neutral, no more truthful. Next you'll be quoting the Guardian as gospel.
 
Last edited:

it's another one of those "conservative dog whistles" that, mysteriously, only liberals can hear...
 
How do you see conservatives?

Well, I'm from Minnesota, and I think most conservatives here generally fall into three categories:

1. Conservatives who describe themselves as "socially liberal," and are basically centrists, as many Democrats in Minnesota also call themselves "socially liberal, fiscally conservative." These people are usually hard working people who have had a job their entire life, are diligent, educated, optimistic, and family-oriented. They are found in all walks of life and rarely are interested in talking politics, especially divisive political issues such as abortion or welfare.

2. Conservatives who describe themselves as "old fashioned," and are middle-right and usually over the age of 50. These people are church-going, fishing, hunting people who have often spent time in the military or own/have owned a small business. They are conservative in every sense of the word: the way they dress, speak, converse, and vote. They're usually pleasant to talk to but are hopeless in that they are not open-minded people.

3. Neo-Conservative types, often very politically active, rarely have large families, rarely have much interest in religion. They love talking politics and they love making other people angry with their hardline views. The guys who do the Powerline blog are perfect examples of this type of Minnesota conservative.

But basically, I prescribe to Paul Wellstone's view about liberals vs. conservatives: liberals genuinely believe the government can help people, and exists to help people; and conservatives believe that the only person or thing who can help people is themselves, and government should do just enough to ensure that people have the opportunity to help themselves.
 
Some people are kooks. To the degree it is possible I am done with you.
 
The call to prayer is magnificent to listen to. I'd question your hearing ability if you denied it. That's from the fingers of a bad Catholic who also enjoys gregorian chants.
I have listened twice. To be as polite as possible, I disagree.

But that is not the point. The one term Marxist president Barack Hussein Obama who attended a Madrassa in Indonesia during his formative hears made that point. Is he Muslim. I don't know. Do you?

He says he is a christian. If so, like many he is a christian in name only.
 
Until this afternoon, I too thought a Midrasah was a Muslim-fundemntalist school.

Then I learned that not only does it not need be fundamentalist, but it is any school, secular or otherwise, in a Muslim country.

Midrasah, like the Jewish equivelany Midrashah, comes from the Semitic word "Midrash", which means "learning".

The word for school in Hebrew is "Beit haMidsrash" or "house of learning".



.....but yes, by saying Obama went to a Midrassah, anti-Islamic bigots are trying to associate Obama with Islamic-extremism, for many Westerners connect Midrassahs with extremist schools in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.
 
I love the comments on being "open minded." Someone who is close minded is someone who won't agree with your point of view.
 
Your posts are quite boring aren't they.
I dunno... you seem to be quite infatuated by them

Though I must say I can understand how you would think they were some prestige Media Think Tank with such stellar reporting as this;

Rachel Maddow Discusses Fox's History Of Fabricating Stories And FOXLEAKS | Media Matters for America
Is there something 'non-factual' or erroneous in that link (above)?

And how courageous of them to hold Fox accountable for using the term illegals, for illegal immigrants. That isn't a bloody stupid article at all;

NY Times Drops "Illegals," As Fox Continues To Cling To Slur | Media Matters for America
An article reporting on the disuse of a dehumanizing term is stupid?

Criticizing a Fox reporter for lying somehow upsets you? Why?

Really? I found it to be a compilation of right wing falsehoods:


Of course, there is much, much more at that link (above).

All it is is the same tired partisan stuff you get on Fox. No more neutral, no more truthful.
:lamo
 
.....but yes, by saying Obama went to a Midrassah, anti-Islamic bigots are trying to associate Obama with Islamic-extremism, for many Westerners connect Midrassahs with extremist schools in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Do you reach much?
 
Some people are kooks. To the degree it is possible I am done with you.
I agree with your former statement. As to the latter, does this mean we won't be exchanging Christmas cards next year?
 
I love the comments on being "open minded." Someone who is close minded is someone who won't agree with your point of view.

Completely disagree with this. I'm liberal all the way, and my liberal parents and liberal neighbors were some of the most closed minded people I've ever met.
 
Completely disagree with this. I'm liberal all the way, and my liberal parents and liberal neighbors were some of the most closed minded people I've ever met.

But all in all i find liberals to be more open minded than conservatives. (generally)
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…