The First Ten Lies from Going Rogue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

I've said nothing about the claims made -- nothing at all.

Frankly, the list of things posted at the top of this thread strikes me as both uninteresting and inherently disputable.

My sole point -- the post that you've responded to -- is that it's pretty common around here to immediately discredit the things said by some, based on the perceived viewpoint of the speaker and not the substance of what that person has said. That's true of posters and its true of the sources that posters rely upon.

Thanks for proving my point.

---

this must be the source of which you claimed to have made your point in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Rather than evaluate the claims made, it serves expedience -- and intellectual laziness -- to disqualify the sources peremptorily.

---

evaluating claims, which requires fact checking is different than evaluating the substance, which requires just taking into consideration.

So don't congratulate yourself for a point not yet made till after the fact.

And the same thing could be said about the huffington post, they never would ever evaluate the substance of anything Sarah Palin would say, nor anybody that is conservative, and you're asking us to be openminded towards them.. okay! lol!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Oh, I agree with you; that was the point of my first post and it's still my point. I'm not sure why you were so intent upon assuming otherwise previously, but you can be certain that I agree with you. I think that would be a wise thing for everyone here to do -- whatever the result of the examination might be -- and it would be a wise thing for everyone to do in the real world.

---

point taken, my apologies. I just assumed you agreed with Wineholes premise with your first post, but you meant an entirely different thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

I didn't weigh in except to say that that the list of supposed lies fits a pattern. I agree with FWD that the list is disputable.

---

So what is the substance of this article? where is the red meat?

Again, point me to any place in this thread where I've agreed with the Huffington Post or evaluated the substance of the assertions made therein.

I'm really curious how it is that I've taken any side in this discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

And again, my point is not wether one side vs the other is republican or not. But there's some bad blood between both sides in this one and to take one's word over the other is not "examining the facts" like you would say.

---

Sure. You seem to assume others have done this on the basis of what you assume they believe. You assume a lot. I wish you read better.

Quote:

---

Winehole, can you tell me how you've researched this, fact checked and asked the sources directly to research the facts. After all you're the one that brought this " you must review the facts.", so why don't you be the example.

---

I'm not carrying water for the OP, I don't agree with everything said there, so I don't see why I should have to defend it, or why it's somehow out of bounds for me to express my opinion about other posters opinion of it. Do your own goddam homework, gtown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Again, point me to any place in this thread where I've agreed with the Huffington Post or evaluated the substance of the assertions made therein.

I'm really curious how it is that I've taken any side in this discussion.

---

To be specific, i was pointing to you agreeing with Winehole that the conservatives on this board need to evaluate the claims made. That's my whole argument. That we shouldn't have to evaluate the claims since there are no facts, and it is one word over the other, and it's from a partisan source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

I'm not carrying water for the OP, I don't agree with everything said there, so I don't see why I should have to defend it, or why it's somehow out of bounds for me to express my opinion about other posters opinion of it. Do your own goddam homework, gtown.

---

Who said you agreed with all the points of the OP?

All i said is that you can't take the original source srsly because of its faults, so i saw it lame that you're lecturing forum cons to do so.

Actually you're right that was one of my first initial points, because you provided an excuse to take McCains word over Palins.

So.. take that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

To be specific, i was pointing to you agreeing with Winehole that the conservatives on this board need to evaluate the claims made. That's my whole argument. That we shouldn't have to evaluate the claims since there are no facts, and it is one word over the other, and it's from a partisan source.

---

Oh, I don't think that's something that only runs to Republicans or conservatives. I think everyone would benefit from evaluating claims rather than just assuming validity/invalidity based on who makes the claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Oh, I don't think that's something that only runs to Republicans or conservatives. I think everyone would benefit from evaluating claims rather than just assuming validity/invalidity based on who makes the claims.

---

:lobt2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

So what is the substance of this article? where is the red meat?

---

Best I recall, the OP points out various inconsistencies between SP and other sources. Gossip raised to an issue of veracity. It's a journalistic commonplace. Your point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Best I recall, the OP points out various inconsistencies between SP and other sources. Gossip raised to an issue of veracity. It's a journalistic commonplace. Your point?

---

Those other sources are hostile.

Now you're just making excuses.

The Article is titled "The first ten LIES.." not "Hearsay".

So you want us to take gossip srsly, thanks alot Winehole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

All i said is that you can't take the original source srsly because of its faults, so i saw it lame that you're lecturing forum cons to do so.

---

I wasn't talking to you. I wasn't talking to board cons. I was talking to WC, who has a bad habit of refusing to consider the report based purely on the source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

Actually you're right that was one of my first initial points, because you provided an excuse to take McCains word over Palins.

---

It's not impossible that McCain staffers are more credible than SP, and concluding this is the case isn't necessarily evidence of partisan bias...unless believing one Republican is more believable than another is evidence of prejudice.

So.. take that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

I wasn't talking to you. I wasn't talking to board cons. I was talking to WC, who has a bad habit of refusing to consider the report based purely on the source.

It's not impossible that McCain staffers are more credible than SP, and concluding this is the case isn't necessarily evidence of partisan bias...unless believing one Republican is more believable than another is evidence of prejudice.

So.. take that.

---

I wasn't accusing the McCain campaign staff of being partisan, just you and the Huffington post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

So you want us to take gossip srsly, thanks alot Winehole.

---

You just love a strawman. I was talking to WC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

I wasn't accusing the McCain campaign staff of being partisan, just you and the Huffington post.

---

I started off by saying the HuffPo has an ideological axe to grind, so we're in basic agreement there. What you think about me is just your opinion. You're welcome to it. It's pretty obvious to anyone who's been around that you habitually turn minor disagreements into partisan beefs.

Maybe other posters would take you a little more seriously if you could get through a thread without mischaracterizing and demonizing your opponents so hastily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

You just love a strawman. I was talking to WC.

---

i was directly responding to your post, how can that be strawman? And plus whether WC has a history here of being closed minded, he has a good reason to be here in this instance.

Unless you want him to be open minded to gossip.

Had Huffington post used "facts" and not hostile accounts, then yes you are right in telling WC he needs to evaluate the "facts".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

I started off by saying the HuffPo has an ideological axe to grind, so we're in basic agreement there. What you think about me is just your opinion. You're welcome to it. It's pretty obvious to anyone who's been around that you habitually turn minor disagreements into partisan beefs.

Maybe other posters would take you a little more seriously if you could get through a thread without mischaracterizing and demonizing your opponents in so hastily.

---

this is the post that got me to put in my two cents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Rather than evaluate the claims made, it serves expedience -- and intellectual laziness -- to disqualify the sources peremptorily.

---

I have done nothing but debate the validity of this post. I disagree with it, and that's why i'm arguing against it in this particular case, whether it was intended towards Cobra, (which you didn't mention in this post, and you made it as a general statement which can be applied to anyone who doesn't take the HuffPo srsly in this article.) I will disagree with it.


That's what message boards are for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

whether WC has a history here of being closed minded, he has a good reason to be here in this instance.

---

That's your opinion. I wish WC were more willing to make his own case and less reliant on the credibility of the source in general.

Quote:

---

Had Huffington post used "facts" and not hostile accounts, then yes you are right in telling WC he needs to evaluate the "facts".

---

The word I used was *claims*, not *facts*. Shift the goal posts much?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

That's your opinion. I wish WC were more willing to make his own case and less reliant on the credibility of the source in general.

---

I haven't read the book, and haven't done any research on the topic. There very well may be lies in her book. Personal experience, however, has me never trusting publications like the Huffington Post without verifying.

Really now, with all the hatred and proven slander and lies people used against Palin, how can anyone in their right mind believe this shit?

How about buying the book, then scan the pages that are claimed lies. Does the Huffington Post even provide enough source material to support their contention?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

I have done nothing but debate the validity of this post.

---

It's like you think people can't read. You tried to paint me as a defender of the OP, as a partisan hack carrying water for HuffPo, as a liar and imposter based on nothing but your own hostile inferences...

....in other words, for exactly what you take the OP to task for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

How about buying the book, then scan the pages that are claimed lies. Does the Huffington Post even provide enough source material to support their contention?

---

Honestly, I barely care about this, and I haven't bothered to read the HuffPo reporting on it. Maybe gtown can tell you.

Or, you can do your own homework WC. You can figure out all on your own if HuffPo crossed "i"s and dotted "t"s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

It's like you think people can't read. You tried to paint me as a defender of the OP, as a partisan hack carrying water for HuffPo, as a liar and imposter based on nothing but your own hostile inferences...

....in other words, for exactly what you take the OP to task for.

---

:rollin , don't lose sight of what this is truly about, you wanted WC to research a gossip article while taking the high road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

:rollin , don't lose sight of what this is truly about, you wanted WC to research a gossip article while taking the high road.

---

What you missed was that I was passing comment on the poster, not the OP, which is little more than a partisan tackling dummy, as you pointed out, and I will readily agree. You hostile inferences about what I intended are just that: hostile inferences.

Everybody can decide for himself just how credible and entertaining your twistified and highly wrought insults are. They obviously amuse you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

What you missed was that I was passing comment on the poster, not the OP, which is little more than a partisan tackling dummy, as you pointed out, and I will readily agree. You hostile inferences about what I intended are just that: hostile inferences.

Everybody can decide for himself just how credible and entertaining your twistified and highly wrought insults are. They obviously amuse you.

---

So the moral of the story is... " I wanted WC to not dismiss a gossip article just because it's also highly biased against the subject, move out of my wAY! I got some forum policing to do!".