The Glade 4.0

No weight? None at all? Give me a break.



Look at the bolded. One of... That's my point. There are other reasons, both big and small. The article states that the program is 20 billion in cost. It helps 8k people. He then turns around and says that the government annexed 1/6 of the economy to help 8k people.

It's a misleading and inaccurate statement. He put this in there for no other purpose than wanting to blow it out of proportion.

If you can't see the bias in this, then I'm afraid I can't help you. Wake up, man - don't be one of those people that cannot see the bias in anything they already agree with. Everything is biased - look for it, find it, know it is there. Otherwise you'll end up buying into a lot of garbage.



It was. Also, it was misleading and biased.

Then why'd you start squabbling over it? There's better examples of bias in that article (like the difference between "costs $20 billion" and "annexes 1/6 of the economy") than "Obamacare".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I didn't. When it was challenged, my response was this:



See how I don't really care?

That's one of my big frustrations on message boards. The conversation can veer off so quickly if you aren't extremely careful what you say. Something you toss out as a miniscule point can just take off sometimes. And then, of course, you feel compelled to explain or defend why you said it, and it just perpetuates it. Next thing you know, 10 pages later, you're debating the meaning of the word "is".

Especially when the core point would be a losing argument the other poster, so misdirection and obfuscation become the "winning" strategy.

In this post you referred to the term of Obamacare as a source of bias no less than 4 times. Coming back later and saying "well, the big ticket one is this one:" doesn't tell anyone you really don't care; just that something else stuck out at you more. If you really didn't care, why'd you pick out 4 different uses of the word Obamacare for individual citations as an indicator of bias?

Ok, fine, I buy that it's not a major thing, and you overemphasized it. People wouldn't be "quibbling" about it if you hadn't done that.



You know what else is frusterating? People trying to change what they said in order to clarify their position, and then blaming everyone else for having responded to what they actually said in the first place. If you're clarifying something fine, but don't ***** at everyone else for their preclarification responses.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I only quoted it that many times because it was used that many times. Clearly, it was overemphasized.



I didn't change anything I said. And I'm not at all ***** for preclarification responses. It's the post-clarification responses. But I'm not really ***** about that - I can't reasonably expect everyone to read the clarification.

That's my frustration - if you're not PERFECTLY clear from the get-go, you can clarify all you want - people aren't going to see it or read it. You are likely to fail to get your point across.

Now I just have no idea what you're talking about.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Awesome.

Perhaps you could clarify?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

**** no.

LOL ^

Well at least this time it only took three-pages to reach this point in the conversation LOL

_________________