ObamaCare…coming soon

[sdgrrl]

Thanks surveyor. Not at all worth noting all those affiliations? Not one Left Leaning Think tank on the show? No bias?

You don’t think it would be worth noting that if someone was supporting socialized medicine on a news broadcast and it was found out all the information came from a liberal agenda it would not taint the perception of the discourse at all?

For every “fact” from these guys there are other “facts” from others.

[sdgrrl]

bias:

to cause partiality or favoritism in (a person); influence, esp. unfairly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment

A debate I would lose? A total failure? In a court of law all of these folks would be impeachable witnesses based on their affiliations and any evidence they brought would be thrown out. Thanks anyway.

You too surveyor. i hope you evolve some and do some research next time you try and come at me.

[sdgrrl]

bias:

to cause partiality or favoritism in (a person); influence, esp. unfairly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment

A debate I would lose? A total failure? In a court of law all of these folks would be impeachable witnesses based on their affiliations and any evidence they brought would be thrown out. Thanks anyway.

You too surveyor. i hope you evolve some and do some research next time you try and come at me.

[sdgrrl]

bias:

to cause partiality or favoritism in (a person); influence, esp. unfairly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment

A debate I would lose? A total failure? In a court of law all of these folks would be impeachable witnesses based on their affiliations and any evidence they brought would be thrown out. Thanks anyway.

You too surveyor. i hope you evolve some and do some research next time you try and come at me.

[sdgrrl]

bias:

to cause partiality or favoritism in (a person); influence, esp. unfairly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment

A debate I would lose? A total failure? In a court of law all of these folks would be impeachable witnesses based on their affiliations and any evidence they brought would be thrown out. Thanks anyway.

You too surveyor. i hope you evolve some and do some research next time you try and come at me.

[sdgrrl]

bias:

to cause partiality or favoritism in (a person); influence, esp. unfairly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment

A debate I would lose? A total failure? In a court of law all of these folks would be impeachable witnesses based on their affiliations and any evidence they brought would be thrown out. Thanks anyway.

You too surveyor. i hope you evolve some and do some research next time you try and come at me.

[surveyor]

[quote=sdgrrl]Thanks surveyor. Not at all worth noting all those affiliations? Not one Left Leaning Think tank on the show? No bias?

You don’t think it would be worth noting that if someone was supporting socialized medicine on a news broadcast and it was found out all the information came from a liberal agenda it would not taint the perception of the discourse at all?

For every “fact” from these guys there are other “facts” from others.[/quote]

Unfortunately sdgrl you don’t argue the facts laid out. You just lay out “affiliations” and “biases”. That’s not an effective argument. Your post puts forward the idea that these “affiliations” and “biases” are effective counter-arguments. They are not. Ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies. You think that just because you can show that a person has biases or agendas that it somehow makes their facts irrelevant. This is absolutely wrong. You would be absolutely wrong in thinking that this “evidence” or “facts” would be thrown out complete just on the basis of a person’s impeachability.

So yes your “argument” as it were would be TOTAL failure because you’re trying to make it about the person instead of about the issue. That is intellectually dishonest at worst and logically incorrect at best.

Again, let me re-emphasize: the fact that a person has a bias, agenda, political leaning, shade, skin color, religion or any other aspect about the person makes no difference upon the argument being made, whether he is for obamacare or against it. These are not factors that make him more correct or more wrong.

Argue the facts. I do not need more research to see that you have not argued the facts. I’m sorry if you are unable to comprehend that this is how a debate works and that these are the rules of logic.

[surveyor]

[quote=sdgrrl]Thanks surveyor. Not at all worth noting all those affiliations? Not one Left Leaning Think tank on the show? No bias?

You don’t think it would be worth noting that if someone was supporting socialized medicine on a news broadcast and it was found out all the information came from a liberal agenda it would not taint the perception of the discourse at all?

For every “fact” from these guys there are other “facts” from others.[/quote]

Unfortunately sdgrl you don’t argue the facts laid out. You just lay out “affiliations” and “biases”. That’s not an effective argument. Your post puts forward the idea that these “affiliations” and “biases” are effective counter-arguments. They are not. Ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies. You think that just because you can show that a person has biases or agendas that it somehow makes their facts irrelevant. This is absolutely wrong. You would be absolutely wrong in thinking that this “evidence” or “facts” would be thrown out complete just on the basis of a person’s impeachability.

So yes your “argument” as it were would be TOTAL failure because you’re trying to make it about the person instead of about the issue. That is intellectually dishonest at worst and logically incorrect at best.

Again, let me re-emphasize: the fact that a person has a bias, agenda, political leaning, shade, skin color, religion or any other aspect about the person makes no difference upon the argument being made, whether he is for obamacare or against it. These are not factors that make him more correct or more wrong.

Argue the facts. I do not need more research to see that you have not argued the facts. I’m sorry if you are unable to comprehend that this is how a debate works and that these are the rules of logic.

[surveyor]

[quote=sdgrrl]Thanks surveyor. Not at all worth noting all those affiliations? Not one Left Leaning Think tank on the show? No bias?

You don’t think it would be worth noting that if someone was supporting socialized medicine on a news broadcast and it was found out all the information came from a liberal agenda it would not taint the perception of the discourse at all?

For every “fact” from these guys there are other “facts” from others.[/quote]

Unfortunately sdgrl you don’t argue the facts laid out. You just lay out “affiliations” and “biases”. That’s not an effective argument. Your post puts forward the idea that these “affiliations” and “biases” are effective counter-arguments. They are not. Ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies. You think that just because you can show that a person has biases or agendas that it somehow makes their facts irrelevant. This is absolutely wrong. You would be absolutely wrong in thinking that this “evidence” or “facts” would be thrown out complete just on the basis of a person’s impeachability.

So yes your “argument” as it were would be TOTAL failure because you’re trying to make it about the person instead of about the issue. That is intellectually dishonest at worst and logically incorrect at best.

Again, let me re-emphasize: the fact that a person has a bias, agenda, political leaning, shade, skin color, religion or any other aspect about the person makes no difference upon the argument being made, whether he is for obamacare or against it. These are not factors that make him more correct or more wrong.

Argue the facts. I do not need more research to see that you have not argued the facts. I’m sorry if you are unable to comprehend that this is how a debate works and that these are the rules of logic.

[surveyor]

[quote=sdgrrl]Thanks surveyor. Not at all worth noting all those affiliations? Not one Left Leaning Think tank on the show? No bias?

You don’t think it would be worth noting that if someone was supporting socialized medicine on a news broadcast and it was found out all the information came from a liberal agenda it would not taint the perception of the discourse at all?

For every “fact” from these guys there are other “facts” from others.[/quote]

Unfortunately sdgrl you don’t argue the facts laid out. You just lay out “affiliations” and “biases”. That’s not an effective argument. Your post puts forward the idea that these “affiliations” and “biases” are effective counter-arguments. They are not. Ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies. You think that just because you can show that a person has biases or agendas that it somehow makes their facts irrelevant. This is absolutely wrong. You would be absolutely wrong in thinking that this “evidence” or “facts” would be thrown out complete just on the basis of a person’s impeachability.

So yes your “argument” as it were would be TOTAL failure because you’re trying to make it about the person instead of about the issue. That is intellectually dishonest at worst and logically incorrect at best.

Again, let me re-emphasize: the fact that a person has a bias, agenda, political leaning, shade, skin color, religion or any other aspect about the person makes no difference upon the argument being made, whether he is for obamacare or against it. These are not factors that make him more correct or more wrong.

Argue the facts. I do not need more research to see that you have not argued the facts. I’m sorry if you are unable to comprehend that this is how a debate works and that these are the rules of logic.

[surveyor]

[quote=sdgrrl]Thanks surveyor. Not at all worth noting all those affiliations? Not one Left Leaning Think tank on the show? No bias?

You don’t think it would be worth noting that if someone was supporting socialized medicine on a news broadcast and it was found out all the information came from a liberal agenda it would not taint the perception of the discourse at all?

For every “fact” from these guys there are other “facts” from others.[/quote]

Unfortunately sdgrl you don’t argue the facts laid out. You just lay out “affiliations” and “biases”. That’s not an effective argument. Your post puts forward the idea that these “affiliations” and “biases” are effective counter-arguments. They are not. Ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies. You think that just because you can show that a person has biases or agendas that it somehow makes their facts irrelevant. This is absolutely wrong. You would be absolutely wrong in thinking that this “evidence” or “facts” would be thrown out complete just on the basis of a person’s impeachability.

So yes your “argument” as it were would be TOTAL failure because you’re trying to make it about the person instead of about the issue. That is intellectually dishonest at worst and logically incorrect at best.

Again, let me re-emphasize: the fact that a person has a bias, agenda, political leaning, shade, skin color, religion or any other aspect about the person makes no difference upon the argument being made, whether he is for obamacare or against it. These are not factors that make him more correct or more wrong.

Argue the facts. I do not need more research to see that you have not argued the facts. I’m sorry if you are unable to comprehend that this is how a debate works and that these are the rules of logic.

[sdgrrl]

For every fact in that segment a fact can be found against it. Just one part of it regarded their “fact” that with socialized care medical technology would come to a stand still. France has socialized medicine, the Swiss have socialized medicine and they have discovered nothing since that all went in to effect?

http://www.expatica.com/ch/news/local_news/Medical-breakthrough-at-Utrecht-University_42449.html

http://www.ivanhoe.com/channels/p_channelstory.cfm?storyid=21407

Just because there s socialized medicine doesn’t mean we won’t have privately funded research.

Just because one guy says medical breakthroughs would stop because of socialized medicine doesn’t make it a fact. It is an opinion/fact based on biased researh and when those are presented as facts thats not an argument its ridiculous and fear monegering. That pieces intent was not an opinion argument it was presented as facts.

[sdgrrl]

For every fact in that segment a fact can be found against it. Just one part of it regarded their “fact” that with socialized care medical technology would come to a stand still. France has socialized medicine, the Swiss have socialized medicine and they have discovered nothing since that all went in to effect?

http://www.expatica.com/ch/news/local_news/Medical-breakthrough-at-Utrecht-University_42449.html

http://www.ivanhoe.com/channels/p_channelstory.cfm?storyid=21407

Just because there s socialized medicine doesn’t mean we won’t have privately funded research.

Just because one guy says medical breakthroughs would stop because of socialized medicine doesn’t make it a fact. It is an opinion/fact based on biased researh and when those are presented as facts thats not an argument its ridiculous and fear monegering. That pieces intent was not an opinion argument it was presented as facts.

[sdgrrl]

For every fact in that segment a fact can be found against it. Just one part of it regarded their “fact” that with socialized care medical technology would come to a stand still. France has socialized medicine, the Swiss have socialized medicine and they have discovered nothing since that all went in to effect?

http://www.expatica.com/ch/news/local_news/Medical-breakthrough-at-Utrecht-University_42449.html

http://www.ivanhoe.com/channels/p_channelstory.cfm?storyid=21407

Just because there s socialized medicine doesn’t mean we won’t have privately funded research.

Just because one guy says medical breakthroughs would stop because of socialized medicine doesn’t make it a fact. It is an opinion/fact based on biased researh and when those are presented as facts thats not an argument its ridiculous and fear monegering. That pieces intent was not an opinion argument it was presented as facts.

[sdgrrl]

For every fact in that segment a fact can be found against it. Just one part of it regarded their “fact” that with socialized care medical technology would come to a stand still. France has socialized medicine, the Swiss have socialized medicine and they have discovered nothing since that all went in to effect?

http://www.expatica.com/ch/news/local_news/Medical-breakthrough-at-Utrecht-University_42449.html

http://www.ivanhoe.com/channels/p_channelstory.cfm?storyid=21407

Just because there s socialized medicine doesn’t mean we won’t have privately funded research.

Just because one guy says medical breakthroughs would stop because of socialized medicine doesn’t make it a fact. It is an opinion/fact based on biased researh and when those are presented as facts thats not an argument its ridiculous and fear monegering. That pieces intent was not an opinion argument it was presented as facts.

[Author]

Posts