FOX: Majority of Likely Voters Agree 'Socialist' Accurately Describes Obama
557 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Amplar;23262646]
i mean come on, a black president!? so progressive that he's black! he 'll never do anything wrong so progressive!!![/QUOTE]
I can't tell if you're trying to imply that he's a bad president because he's black or what
TH89, what does your racistometer say
[editline]07:10PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=iPat;23262960]Doriol, you have almost 5000 posts, are they all as fucking retarded as what I've seen in this thread?[/QUOTE]
Doriol's posts have been fine
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;23261013]What? The burden on proof is on us both. That's like saying 'I believe in God, you prove to me why he doesn't exist, if you can't, I'm on top!'
[/QUOTE]
the burden of proof refers to someone saying something
someone trying to prove a point has the burden of proof, someone saying it isn't does not.
it's up to the person trying to prove it to prove it, hence burden of proof
The whole world gone communist. :byodood:
:smithicide:
[QUOTE=Zeke129;23261153]Your avatar makes me imagine a fat shirtless man with a mullet, the names of three different women tattooed on various parts of his body, and an automatic rifle in one hand and a hamburger in the other[/QUOTE]
You're an ignorant hypocrite, you know that?
[QUOTE=SteelReal;23259096]In the Deceleration of Independence it states that every person has the same fundamental rights to life, liberty and the [b]pursuit[/b], not the guarantee of happiness.[/QUOTE]
It's hard to pursue happiness when you're crippled by debt because you couldn't afford your medical bills.
[QUOTE=iPat;23262960]Doriol, you have almost 5000 posts, are they all as fucking retarded as what I've seen in this thread?[/QUOTE]
I'm retarded because I'm not blindly against something
[QUOTE=Chippay;23264014]the burden of proof refers to someone saying something
someone trying to prove a point has the burden of proof, someone saying it isn't does not.
it's up to the person trying to prove it to prove it, hence burden of proof[/QUOTE]
"The philosophic burden of proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position. [B]In any such dispute, both parties will hold a burden of proof[/B]"
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;23264520]"The philosophic burden of proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position. [B]In any such dispute, both parties will hold a burden of proof[/B]"[/QUOTE]
[citation needed]
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;23264520]"The philosophic burden of proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position. [B]In any such dispute, both parties will hold a burden of proof[/B]"[/QUOTE]
that's if both are trying to prove something
in the event that someone is trying to prove something, and another is denying their attempts, refer back to my post
[editline]01:24AM[/editline]
ps don't quote wikipedia at me
if you're going to look up the phrase at least use a credible source
[QUOTE=Doriol;23264536][citation needed][/QUOTE]
Sure, let me just pull a classical philosopher out of my ass. It's general philosophy, it's not a law. I've made an argument, do you wish to counter argue?
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;23264597]Sure, let me just pull a classical philosopher out of my ass. It's general philosophy, it's not a law. I've made an argument, do you wish to counter argue?[/QUOTE]
why did you wrap it in quotes if it's not a specific quote
[editline]penis[/editline]
is "counter argue" a phrase?
[QUOTE=SteelReal;23264387]You're an ignorant hypocrite, you know that?[/QUOTE]
no he's canadian
[QUOTE=Chippay;23264561]that's if both are trying to prove something
in the event that someone is trying to prove something, and another is denying their attempts, refer back to my post
[editline]01:24AM[/editline]
ps don't quote wikipedia at me
if you're going to look up the phrase at least use a credible source[/QUOTE]
What's this even about? I wanted him to tell me why it was a credible source, not say 'Yeah well you tell me why first!' I don't honestly care all that much, it's the Internet, not a fucking philosophy class. I just want to know if he has something to counter argue.
[editline]02:29AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Doriol;23264630]irrelevant bullshit[/QUOTE]
Given my evidence, do you support that in this case, Fox News a credible source?
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;23264666]What's this even about? I wanted him to tell me why it was a credible source[/QUOTE]
no you didn't
you said that fox is not a credible source but instead of proving that to me you told me to retrieve proof
[editline]penis[/editline]
burden of proof was on you
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;23264666]
Given my evidence, do you support that in this case, Fox News a credible source?[/QUOTE]
what evidence
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;23264666]What's this even about? I wanted him to tell me why it was a credible source, not say 'Yeah well you tell me why first!' I don't honestly care all that much, it's the Internet, not a fucking philosophy class. I just want to know if he has something to counter argue.[/QUOTE]
i am not surprised in the least he stopped replying to you
three posts in and you're already saying 'OH MY GOD IT'S NOT A PHILOSOPHY CLASS'
[editline]01:30AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;23264666]
Given my evidence, do you support that in this case, Fox News a credible source?[/QUOTE]
ugh
[QUOTE=Doriol;23264697]no you didn't
you said that fox is not a credible source but instead of proving that to me you told me to retrieve proof[/QUOTE]
I provided my own proof in the same post, without any edits. We can either argue the merits of philosophical debate or you can provide a rebuttal.
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;23264719]I provided my own proof in the same post, without any edits. We can either argue the merits of philosophical debate or you can provide a rebuttal.[/QUOTE]
what philosophical debate
telling you the basics of an argument is not having a philosophical debate
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;23242979]You say Republicans are all retarded, further reinforcing the stereotype that liberals are naive elitists.[/QUOTE]
With Glaber on your side, you sure you want to say that?
And this is quite bullshit, the results of the poll kinda proving that republicans are pretty retarded
[editline]02:33AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Glaber;23242986]Forget them, give it to Obama. He's tanking faster than Carter.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, fuck Carter and his... uh, quite successful leadership?
[editline]02:34AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Glaber;23243023]Does it ever work? Last I knew, it was recently failing in Europe.[/QUOTE]
uh... no?
we're out of the recession, save for Greece, and last i heard the US was not
[QUOTE=Doriol;23264729]what philosophical debate
telling you the basics of an argument is not having a philosophical debate[/QUOTE]
We're not having a debate, I don't want a debate. I'm asking you, if you're still interested, to give your side of the 'Fox News' statement in reply to my own evidence why it's not a credible source.
[QUOTE=Chippay;23264705]i am not surprised in the least he stopped replying to you
three posts in and you're already saying 'OH MY GOD IT'S NOT A PHILOSOPHY CLASS'[/QUOTE]
This was never a philosophical argument. This is a news thread. He was asking me for evidence, I provided it. What is so difficult to understand? I don't want to argue about meaningless crap. If he doesn't want to argue my point, then I don't care. I made a perfectly reasoned point, argue with it if you want, but don't blindly start sprouting childish shit.
[QUOTE=Ybbat;23243063]Isn't Liberty guaranteed in the constitution? So why are they bitching that hes too "liberal"[/QUOTE]
I have no idea what you're talking about
[editline]02:41AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=bugfix;23248152]No socialist country ever achieved that.
[editline]11:37AM[/editline]
Please do not confuse socialism with the Welfare state.[/QUOTE]
ok, slappy, we'll play along.
What's wrong with welfare states?
and i'm not even going to explain what socialism is,
[QUOTE=Warhol;23264790]I have no idea what you're talking about[/QUOTE]
Same, liberals want everyone to take it up the ass from the government daily.
[QUOTE=Warhol;23264790]What's wrong with welfare states?
and i'm not even going to explain what socialism is,[/QUOTE]
Oooh. -Grabs popcorn- Should be interesting.
[QUOTE=bugfix;23248613]They still called themselves socialist. (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)[/QUOTE]
IS the Congo a democratic republic?
[editline]02:43AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=SteelReal;23264892]Same, liberals want everyone to take it up the ass from the government daily.[/QUOTE]
Like criminalising weed, gambling, prostitution, making morality laws, forcing religion- WAIT A GOLLY GEE SECOND
you're a tool steelreal
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;23264784]
This was never a philosophical argument. This is a news thread. He was asking me for evidence, I provided it. What is so difficult to understand? I don't want to argue about meaningless crap. If he doesn't want to argue my point, then I don't care. I made a perfectly reasoned point, argue with it if you want, but don't blindly start sprouting childish shit.[/QUOTE]
you chose to argue with my correction, and when i told you that you were mistaken you sperged out and starting ranting about how it wasn't a philosophy class.
big news here, this isn't debate class, or a social studies classroom. surprise
and 'blindly spouting childish crap' is more when you have no argument left and just say something in a pitiful attempt at a rebuttle. things such as 'no we both have the burden of proof'! and 'well this isn't a philosophy class!'
those things seem familiar.
as a side note, burden of proof is part of debate, if you want to talk about arguments it's entirely valid. it's so abundantly clear you had no idea what that term meant prior to my post it's almost amusing.
[QUOTE=Warhol;23264897]IS the Congo a democratic republic?
[editline]02:43AM[/editline]
Like criminalising weed, gambling, prostitution, making morality laws, forcing religion- WAIT A GOLLY GEE SECOND
you're a tool steelreal[/QUOTE]
Stop treading on him Warhol. It's only government regulation if it helps poor people or mexicans.
Political ignorance? In EARTH? OMFG
mrendangered you need to take a debate class in school
[QUOTE=Warhol;23264897]IS the Congo a democratic republic?
[editline]02:43AM[/editline]
Like criminalising weed, gambling, prostitution, making morality laws, forcing religion- WAIT A GOLLY GEE SECOND
you're a tool steelreal[/QUOTE]
I'm actually for the legalization of weed. Basically out of everything except for a military and basic utilities.
[QUOTE=Doriol;23253868]hey guess what the news article wasn't biased in the least
stop blindly hating fox news[/QUOTE]
lol
[QUOTE=Chippay;23264947]you chose to argue with my correction, and when i told you that you were mistaken you sperged out and starting ranting about how it wasn't a philosophy class.
big news here, this isn't debate class, or a social studies classroom. surprise
and 'blindly spouting childish crap' is more when you have no argument left and just say something in a pitiful attempt at a rebuttle. things such as 'no we both have the burden of proof'! and 'well this isn't a philosophy class!'
those things seem familiar.
as a side note, burden of proof is part of debate, if you want to talk about arguments it's entirely valid. it's so abundantly clear you had no idea what that term meant prior to my post it's almost amusing.[/QUOTE]
I honestly, honestly don't care.
I didn't 'choose to argue with you', I wanted you to go away so I could seek his rebuttal about credibility. I wanted to learn something and gain an insight. I thought he was wrong, I provided proof, I wanted him to answer to see his reply.
I'm not trying to hide behind opinion, or repressing myself into believing I'm right and you're wrong. I'm not saying you're wrong. I don't want to rebuttal you. You know how you're in a bar, and you're having an interesting conversation with the guy opposite, then somebody sits at the table and makes a comment about something you said? Yeah, you're like that guy. I don't care if I was wrong, it's not important. If this was a thread about philosophy, the burden of truth, etc, I would care. But the fact is, I wanted an answer. Now that I've provided him with one, I wanted a return argument. Instead all I get is this silly hooking on a comment I made. That is what is stupid. Simply let it slide and let the man talk, if he so wishes to. If not, then... well big deal.
If you want to continue this little 'chat' and be a big man and put me down, rapping me in the ass with American Truth and America Justice, then don't. I'm not interested, nobody in the thread is interested. This is about Fox.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.