Oh no. Thank YOU, sir, for explaining to me what logic is and how to use it. I had no idea, dumb schmuck that I am.<br><br>The fact that you speak as if you and you alone may judge the presence and/or quality of anyone else's logic confuses me though. I can't tell which you're more full of: bullsh!t, or yourself.<br><br>Oh, and no need to thank me for that compliment. You've totally earned it. <br><br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I had no idea, dumb schmuck that I am.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Sarcasm aside, I am sorry you think I think that way about you. I can assure you that you've jumped to conclusions.<br><br>I honestly don't find many dumb schmucks around, but I do find many people who are just uninformed. At least they CAN be informed and I try and do my part to inform with as little bias as is possible. A dumb schmuck is a lost cause. Most dumb schmucks stay off of these kinds of forums.<br><br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> I do find many people who are just uninformed. At least they CAN be informed and I try and do my part to inform with as little bias as is possible<p><hr></blockquote><p>OOOOOOHHHHH here we go. I knew it'd come out sooner or later. Now where have we heard this before? Hmmmmmmm....<br><br><br><br>****************<br>
***************<br><br>This space left intentionally blank
And you are about the least informed because you fail to use credible sources most of the time. What credible sources you do supply, you don't really pay attention to what they are saying because you're to busy trying to find a way to discredit them. Get real man.<br><br>
Attaboy! That's the ol' hubris. Why is it that one is only well-informed if they happen to harvest their information from the same sources as you? Or if those sources lean in the same direction as yours? YOU get real "man". Anyone can be "well-informed". Whether you choose to accept another POV or not is up to you, but don't just dismiss it all because it wasn't on your approved reading list.<br><br>I don't agree with Matt's political position, but that doesn't make him "uninformed".<br><br>Talk about discrediting others. Whoooeeeee! <br><br>
I am a pro-life Liberal who is left of the Dems on many issues and right of the Dems on a few others. <br><br>I recognize this. I recognize we all have bias. However, being liberal doesn't mean that I have to only see and agree with the liberal news in the world. I try and come to rational conclusions based on many sources. Matt tries to read a variety of sources so he can find bias. Look at many of the topics he starts. When he is actually trying to discuss an issue besides bias, it's generally from a conservative only source. Some conservative sources can be very factual. I think the WSJ is a good conservative source and I'd like to read it more often. I think TownHall is a poor source and I could do without it forever. I think Air America is a poor liberal source and I only tried listening one time. I think Fox News is a poor conservative source. I think Chris Matthews is a poor liberal source who tries to pander to conservatives too often. I think the NY Times Op-Ed page is more liberal than conservative, but it has intelligence all around. I think the news pages are generally balanced and that's why the NY Times is so respected. Unfortunately, many people try and attribute the Op-Ed pages with the news pages. I also think that my truth is often viewed by Matt as liberal bias. That's not to say that I don't show bias from time to time. But this is unfortunate that Matt falls for this trap presented by people like Rush Limbaugh who fear the truth and call it LIBERAL media. Sounds like you are trying to fall for the same trick. I hope you're more wise than that.<br><br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Sounds like you are trying to fall for the same trick.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Not sure who would want to try to fall for a trick. I certainly wouldn't, though it doesn't mean I've never been fooled. As for you bibliography, and how you define "your truth", it may work for you, and that's fine. But if someone else chooses to find their truth from fewer or more biased sourcess, it's still as much truth to them as yours is to you. Fact is, there is no one truth in politics. Too many masters. Too many issues. As far as I'm concerned, it's the isometric tension between all those truths that in time brings solutions to the surface. <br><br>Sounds to me like you fear someone else's truth and call it a CONSERVATIVE agenda.<br><br>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.