|
Post by rmarks1 on Jan 11, 2014 17:04:14 GMT -5
That's what this research indicates.
Bob Marks
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2014 20:46:30 GMT -5
Bob, you like to point out policital or otherwise skewed sources that folks use here to bolster their viewpoints. I'd just like to also bring up the political fact that reason.com is a libertarian opinion source. Just saying. Carry on.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jan 11, 2014 22:43:53 GMT -5
Bob, you like to point out policital or otherwise skewed sources that folks use here to bolster their viewpoints. I'd just like to also bring up the political fact that reason.com is a libertarian opinion source. Just saying. Carry on. Yes, but the research was done by the Brookings Institution, which is liberal-centerist. Yes, this quote is from Wikipedia, but you can check the references given to check. Here is some more information on the Brookings Institution from the Huffington Post, and they are definitely not Libertarian. www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/brookings-top-think-tank_n_1214380.htmlBob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2014 22:55:52 GMT -5
That was not my point, Bob. The point is that anyone could even quote the Devil to back up their points. So using one source or another in one's favor doesn't prove anything. Remember now, you yourself agreed that the media is baias so what does it even prove for anyone? One opinon can ALWAYS be contrdicted by another. Yes, even polls (in the 2012 election the consverative polls showed Romney winning... and that is a fact!) You know that. So really, political argumentation is no different than philisophical argument. Can you agree with that?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jan 12, 2014 12:43:24 GMT -5
That was not my point, Bob. The point is that anyone could even quote the Devil to back up their points. So using one source or another in one's favor doesn't prove anything. Remember now, you yourself agreed that the media is baias so what does it even prove for anyone? One opinon can ALWAYS be contrdicted by another. Yes, even polls (in the 2012 election the consverative polls showed Romney winning... and that is a fact!) You know that. So really, political argumentation is no different than philisophical argument. Can you agree with that? This research was not done by a biased source. The Brookings Institution has always been centrist and a little to the left. Did you see the part about how over 97% of their employees vote Democratic? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2014 3:39:58 GMT -5
I love it how you seem to think that Wikipedia is an "unreliable source" when it doesn't back up your Libertarian talking points, but then you turn around and rely on Reason.Com of all sites for your political news. :lol:
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 12, 2014 17:25:27 GMT -5
I love it how you seem to think that Wikipedia is an "unreliable source" when it doesn't back up your Libertarian talking points, but then you turn around and rely on Reason.Com of all sites for your political news. :lol: And I love it when you avoid dealing with the topic at hand and instead indulge in innuendos. Wikipedia does have a credibility problem. As far as I know, Reason.com does not, and neither does this author. In any event, if you have evidence that contradicts the author's research, please give it. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2014 11:06:58 GMT -5
I love it how you seem to think that Wikipedia is an "unreliable source" when it doesn't back up your Libertarian talking points, but then you turn around and rely on Reason.Com of all sites for your political news. :lol: And I love it when you avoid dealing with the topic at hand and instead indulge in innuendos. Wikipedia does have a credibility problem. As far as I know, Reason.com does not, and neither does this author. Reason.com does not have a credibility problem, in the same way Pravda does not have a credibility problem. It's a propaganda mouthpiece created and funded by right-wingers such as the Koch brothers with the specific aim to push their pro-corporate agenda - this is not an attack on the site, it's an easily verifiable fact. So you can dismiss it again because it's not from a "credible source" like Reason or Frontpage?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 14, 2014 20:21:14 GMT -5
And I love it when you avoid dealing with the topic at hand and instead indulge in innuendos. Wikipedia does have a credibility problem. As far as I know, Reason.com does not, and neither does this author. Reason.com does not have a credibility problem, in the same way Pravda does not have a credibility problem. It's a propaganda mouthpiece created and funded by right-wingers such as the Koch brothers with the specific aim to push their pro-corporate agenda - this is not an attack on the site, it's an easily verifiable fact. Okay. Then verify it. So you can dismiss it again because it's not from a "credible source" like Reason or Frontpage? [/quote]No. So we can discuss it. Now do you have contrary evidence? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2014 12:30:53 GMT -5
Sourcewatch:
Wikipedia:
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 15, 2014 15:32:00 GMT -5
Yes. Therefore...? Does any of this disprove even one factual assertion made by the Reason Foundation? And how does this demonstrate that the Reason Foundation is a "propaganda mouthpiece?" David Koch also donated a lot of money to the Lincoln Center for Performing arts and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Are they now "propaganda mouthpices?" Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2014 14:57:22 GMT -5
Tell me Bob, is Pravda a credible source? If not, why not?
|
|
|
Post by teri on Feb 17, 2014 16:46:51 GMT -5
reason self described libertarian think tank.....so self admitted biased perspective. also have ties to ALEC
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 17, 2014 16:50:14 GMT -5
Tell me Bob, is Pravda a credible source? If not, why not? Are you claiming that Reason magazine is no more reliable than Pravda? If so, where is your evidence for that claim? Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 17, 2014 16:51:43 GMT -5
reason self described libertarian think tank.....so self admitted biased perspective. also have ties to ALEC Yes. Does that mean the facts they cite are automatically wrong? All you have to do to refute them is show contrary data. Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 17, 2014 17:23:21 GMT -5
If you don't like Reason Magazine, try the Liberal Washington Post. Bob
|
|