• 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!

Media Matters - Are they deceptive on purpose?

Right, I'm sure you read the whole thing and the links he provided within the 1-2 minutes between my post and when you started typing yours.

And since when is responding to specific points not a "rebuttal"?

I looked for to rebutt hat I put up. Not what another said.

Nor does his citation of one person amount to a rebutal over the many, many other people, voices, studies and science. That he puts more stock in one doesn't make him accurate or answer the fact check I presented.
 
So, the reporter says he was accurate, but the magazine calls him patriotic (so?) and apologises? What am I missing here?

Probably evidence of dishonesty. Just a suggestion.

And again, you read and absorbed everything they said in 1-2 minutes, along with their link examples? I think not.
 
I looked for to rebutt hat I put up. Not what another said.

Umm . . . why would I need to rebut ThinkProgress when the actual author of the article they and you were calling "dishonest" actually did so?

And besides, I told you what I thought.

Nor does his citation of one person amount to a rebutal over the many, many other people, voices, studies and science. That he puts more stock in one doesn't make him accurate or answer the fact check I presented.

He doesn't have to. You're talking about "dishonesty." You seem to be quite confused about what you're actually arguing here. And I'm quite certain you don't even know what he himself argued in his own article; you just took ThinkProgress's cherry-picking as gold.
 
Probably evidence of dishonesty. Just a suggestion.

And again, you read and absorbed everything they said in 1-2 minutes, along with their link examples? I think not.

I read fast. ;)

But you didn't actually answer the question. I'll be leaving for the day, but will pick this up agian later.
 
I read fast. ;)

But you didn't actually answer the question. I'll be leaving for the day, but will pick this up agian later.

That's funny; I'm pretty sure I did.

And no one reads that fast. Especially someone who says he's not so good with computers, which is why it takes him time to investigate these things.
 
That's funny; I'm pretty sure I did.

And no one reads that fast. Especially someone who says he's not so good with computers, which is why it takes him time to investigate these things.

Not good with computers; real good at reading. ;0
 
Back
Top Bottom