IS THIS FUCKING LEGIT?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Again, it will be circular, as I want to know the outstanding threat from the USSR in 1981, and you want an affidavit from god that there wasn't one.

I provided the data to prove it, you get to refute it. No affidavits from God except in your demands to everyone else.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So can ya blame me for thinking the Onion was some nutty RW arm?

You betcha.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Vs the neo-con bible: Hannity?

Well, I'd take Hannity over the Onion as a news source.

And to be honest, I don't even know what channel Hannity is on, nor could I spot him in a line up. But I do know that the Onion is satire.

Another hint... You do know that John Stewart is also satire right?

And SNL's weekend update is as well?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Quote

You have really lost it this time. You don't think much before you type, do you?

Perhaps the title will give you a clue...

IS THIS FUCKING LEGIT?

Quote

This should be the nail in the coffin for any credibility you think you have.

Ah, I see, because I wasn't familiar with the Onion, Bush really was a great president and Reagan wasn't a fascist pig . Niiiiice logic. Each element stands alone, unless you are of the party that states, 'With us or against us."

Quote

There are plenty more stories bashing Bush. Doesn't sound like a RW website. I'm sure you will find some excuse for this though to back up your claim. You are the spin god.

I couldn't find you attacking when one of the guys 'with you and not against you' thought Japan was atatcked in 1945. I guess you're selective.

Remember, attack the person, not the issue. Verifed in your sig

I am an open minded centrist. If you disagree with me, then you are just wrong and goat fuck stupid.

Go Republicans

Like I said, I knew you would find a way to spin it in your favor. But you still lose.

All you had to do is research the Onion and you would have know what type of site is was. Although you expect everyone else to research any info posted here, you are exempt I guess.

Spin away if you wish. It won't change that you screwed up. I can't wait to see how you spin your screw up into a positive.

(stop feeding the trolls, stop feeding the trolls)

[kelpdiver 2]

the great thing is that we can use the Onion as a citation when debating him.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

the great thing is that we can use the Onion as a citation when debating him.

...and wiki too...

With time, I think we can get some of the tabloids on his must-read list for news.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[quade 4]

Quote

Another hint... You do know that John (sic) Stewart is also satire right?

And yet Jon Stewart is still one of the best interviewers in the news business; real or fake. Half of the problems with politicians would go away if all news interviewers held to as high a standard as he does for accuracy and not letting people get away with shit.

Always couched in humor, but he's damn good at what he does.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

Another hint... You do know that John (sic) Stewart is also satire right?

And yet Jon Stewart is still one of the best interviewers in the news business; real or fake. Half of the problems with politicians would go away if all news interviewers held to as high a standard as he does for accuracy and not letting people get away with shit.

Always couched in humor, but he's damn good at what he does.

Agreed! Jon Stewart is awesome.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

the great thing is that we can use the Onion as a citation when debating him.

...and wiki too...

With time, I think we can get some of the tabloids on his must-read list for news.

And Wiki Answers. He has used that one also.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Many of the controversial articles are marked as such, and there are generally vigorous discussion pages to go along with them.

And most (though not all) of them are open for each of you who hate Wikipedia to make it reflect what you think is reality.

However, everyone else has the same ability, too.

Wendy P.

I agree. Many of the controversial articles are marked as such, and discussion pages are accessible. OTOH, an article can be edited to say whatever the researcher wants it to say long enough to quote it as a source. Unfortunately, the same attributes of Wikipedia that make it a valuable internet resource for many topics makes it a less than credible source for other topics.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

And I agree with that. But they are objective and don't have an agenda. If there's a dispute as to the accuracy, they will state so. I would take honest inaccuracy over bias any day. One's an accident, the other a deliberate act of deception. I like Wikipedia as a starting place too, so I agree.

I would agree that the Wikipedia Foundation is generally objective. The article authors, who actually write the articles, are not always so objective and sometimes have agendas other than dissemination of accurate information.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Ron 10]

Quote

And yet Jon Stewart is still one of the best interviewers in the news business; real or fake. Half of the problems with politicians would go away if all news interviewers held to as high a standard as he does for accuracy and not letting people get away with shit

Agreed that he can do a good job... But his intent is not to inform, but to entertain. I have seen him make fun of his guest and mess with them as often as I have seen him do a real interview.

He has the skills, but his intent is not to inform. That does not mean that he does not sometimes have good info.... but I seriously doubt you could consider him a good resource for news.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Half of the problems with politicians would go away if all news interviewers held to as high a standard as he does for accuracy and not letting people get away with shit.

Always couched in humor, but he's damn good at what he does.

Agreed

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

the great thing is that we can use the Onion as a citation when debating him.

Why not, you use Hannity, nothing would surprise me from the right.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Well, I'd take Hannity over the Onion as a news source.

And that's my point, a rag like Hannity who just, uh, made an error and posted a video/pics of a rally quite a while ago and tried to represent it as one from last week or two because the former had a much higher turnout, well, you would still consider that credible. Not to mention the littany of all the other BS and blatant lies from that rag. So for me to wonder WTF the Onion was after seeing that skit isn't that far off. Hell, listen to Limbaugh (as if you don't already) and hear him call Obama by his middle name and state / infer he's Muslim and a terrorist. When I see radical paranoia from the right or the perception of it I'm not surprised; you call it normal.

Quote

And to be honest, I don't even know what channel Hannity is on, nor could I spot him in a line up. But I do know that the Onion is satire.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Quote

Another hint... You do know that John Stewart is also satire right?

I don't follow him, just as I didn't follow the Onion.

Quote

And SNL's weekend update is as well?

Now that I can recite.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

So can ya blame me for thinking the Onion was some nutty RW arm?

You betcha.

Case in point; a Palin knock-off. As nuts as the RW rags are to most 'normal-thinking' people, when I see something like that it gives me pause to wonder about its legitimacy.

Be real, most neo-cons think like that satirircal presentation.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Again, it will be circular, as I want to know the outstanding threat from the USSR in 1981, and you want an affidavit from god that there wasn't one.

I provided the data to prove it, you get to refute it. No affidavits from God except in your demands to everyone else.

The question isn't in that thread. Repost it and I will be glad to answer it.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You have really lost it this time. You don't think much before you type, do you?

Perhaps the title will give you a clue...

IS THIS FUCKING LEGIT?

Quote

This should be the nail in the coffin for any credibility you think you have.

Ah, I see, because I wasn't familiar with the Onion, Bush really was a great president and Reagan wasn't a fascist pig . Niiiiice logic. Each element stands alone, unless you are of the party that states, 'With us or against us."

Quote

There are plenty more stories bashing Bush. Doesn't sound like a RW website. I'm sure you will find some excuse for this though to back up your claim. You are the spin god.

I couldn't find you attacking when one of the guys 'with you and not against you' thought Japan was atatcked in 1945. I guess you're selective.

Remember, attack the person, not the issue. Verifed in your sig

I am an open minded centrist. If you disagree with me, then you are just wrong and goat fuck stupid.

Go Republicans

Like I said, I knew you would find a way to spin it in your favor. But you still lose.

All you had to do is research the Onion and you would have know what type of site is was. Although you expect everyone else to research any info posted here, you are exempt I guess.

Spin away if you wish. It won't change that you screwed up. I can't wait to see how you spin your screw up into a positive.

(stop feeding the trolls, stop feeding the trolls)

That's a laugher, I do more research here than most. Hey, I threw it up there as a question, as stated in the title, I didn't know the Onion was a satrical site; where's the spin? So your boy stating Pearl Harbor was atatcked in 1945 isn't worth a mention, but something as important as the Onion is something we must all be aware of? We get it. One sheep follows the other. This is why the left calls the right a bunch of sheep; they have very good solidarity. In fact SNL did a skit on that and it was hillarious. The drones were arguing over one guy liking Hannity, the other Limbaugh, it started getting ugly and the moderator piped in and basically said we all think basically the same way, let's not infight.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

the great thing is that we can use the Onion as a citation when debating him.

...and wiki too...

With time, I think we can get some of the tabloids on his must-read list for news.

Wiki, yes. It has no agenda. It's accuracy is generally supported by its bib, so I think it's great. Show me several Wiki errors. If there are, people refine it and if it gets too debated, they state so.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

the great thing is that we can use the Onion as a citation when debating him.

...and wiki too...

With time, I think we can get some of the tabloids on his must-read list for news.

And Wiki Answers. He has used that one also.

That one is not good, I've stated that. Of course you also ignore BEA data, so it really matters not which I cite, it's:

- Love Jesus Christ our load and savio

- Love me some GWB; he's the best

THis is all you need to know. Execute em, cut taxes and burn fags at the stake while RWers go have gay affairs; this is the RW protocol. Here's part of my bible:

http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

And I agree with that. But they are objective and don't have an agenda. If there's a dispute as to the accuracy, they will state so. I would take honest inaccuracy over bias any day. One's an accident, the other a deliberate act of deception. I like Wikipedia as a starting place too, so I agree.

I would agree that the Wikipedia Foundation is generally objective. The article authors, who actually write the articles, are not always so objective and sometimes have agendas other than dissemination of accurate information.

Exactly and then the staff pipes in if there are a lot of alterations to it or disputes and states the article/subject has neutrality issues. Truthfully, from a scientific position, unless we're talking to a neo-con, there is no such thing as eternal proof or fact, it's all up for grabs, so even other sites will have credibility issues. It's about reasonableness.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Ron 10]

Quote

And that's my point,

Your point is that you were taken by a joke and are now trying to make it look like you were not.

Quote

Hell, listen to Limbaugh (as if you don't already)

I don't... I bet you listen to him more than I do. My Dad likes him, I can't stand him. In fact, I don't like any of the talking heads.

You seem to only dislike the ones from the right and drink the koolaid from the ones on the left... Oh, and drink the koolaid from satire sites.

Quote

When I see radical paranoia from the right or the perception of it I'm not surprised; you call it normal.

See, this is where we differ. When I see radical paranoia from the right or the perception of it I'm not surprised, but think its stupid; you call it normal.

And when I see radical paranoia from the left or the perception of it I'm not surprised, but I think it is stupid; you claim it does not exist.

Quote

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

I don't know what channel he is on.... You can continue to try and make up facts, but just because you believe it does not make it true.... Just like believing "news" "reported" by the Onion does not make it true.

Quote

I don't follow him, just as I didn't follow the Onion.

This just goes to show that you don't vet your sources... The irony is you jump on people for using what YOU call rags, but you stupidly tried to cite a well known satire program.

Just admit that you were taken in and that you are now stupidly trying to backpedal and let it go... This whole thread casts doubt on your ability to recognize a good source from a bad one.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Like I said, I knew you would find a way to spin it in your favor. But you still lose.

All you had to do is research the Onion and you would have know what type of site is was. Although you expect everyone else to research any info posted here, you are exempt I guess.

Spin away if you wish. It won't change that you screwed up. I can't wait to see how you spin your screw up into a positive.

(stop feeding the trolls, stop feeding the trolls)

Quote

That's a laugher, I do more research here than most. Hey, I threw it up there as a question, as stated in the title, I didn't know the Onion was a satrical site; where's the spin?

I guess you should have researched it more. Like I said you would spin it in your favor.

Yep, your title was a question but what about this statement you made.

Quote

I think it is real and legit.

Check your previous post or just spin away as usual.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eXEMlMuesU&feature=related

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.