D ad putting R Hayworth in rifle crosshairs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqB4tyvxWKA&feature=youtu.be
"I think it's tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers, unless the hostage gets harmed. In this case the hostage is the American people and I was not willing to see them get harmed," Obama on keeping taxes from increasing, December 6, 2010
"Here's the problem: It's almost like they've got -- they've got a bomb strapped to them and they've got their hand on the trigger. You don't want them to blow up. But you've got to kind of talk them, ease that finger off the trigger." Obama on banks, March 2009
DCCC map (appears to have been scrubbed from their site, not surprising) targeting individual R's, from google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:FH3bb1oRx54J:www.dccc.org/content/recovery+www.dccc.org/content/recovery&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
DCCC map targetting specific Republicans, appears to have been scrubbed from their website, so gotten through google cache. They don't want true believers like Mark to have to walk anything back, you see.
"Here's the problem: It's almost like they've got -- they've got a bomb strapped to them and they've got their hand on the trigger. You don't want them to blow up. But you've got to kind of talk them, ease that finger off the trigger." Obama on banks, March 2009
"I think it's tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers, unless the hostage gets harmed. In this case the hostage is the American people and I was not willing to see them get harmed," Obama on keeping taxes from increasing, December 6, 2010
It's because you are so obsessed with winning the argument and scoring points that you don't understand what Mark is trying to do which is illustrate the severity of the discourse coming from the right. There is no equivalent for this on the left. There used to be, I'll grant you that, in the 1960s but Rachel Maddow doesn't say stuff like this. It might be spin and biased but it's not as bad as this.
Stop thinking of it in terms of Mark trying to "win" and start thinking of it in terms of him trying to solve a problem.
you don't understand what Mark is trying to do which is illustrate the severity of the discourse coming from the right.
Well I wish he'd actually do that then, because so far his illustrations haven't much to distinguish them from the illustrations of the left using the same level of discourse.
Hmm...looks like Blogger is back to not eating comments again. I sent them an email a couple of weeks back complaining about lost comments. I never heard anything back. It seems like your eaten comment somehow got corrected. Could this mean they fixed it? We'll see I guess.
"haven't much to distinguish them from the illustrations of the left using the same level of discourse."
Completely ridiculous. That's like saying that the sheriffs with the firehouses and the attack dogs in Alabama and Mississippi had their side as well. The left might have its problems but they are nowhere near the level of the right today. By playing the "both sides" game, you dilute the source of the problem. It's very clear who that is so stop playing the games and trying to deflect the responsibility for this.
There is no equivalent for this on the left. There used to be, I'll grant you that, in the 1960s but Rachel Maddow doesn't say stuff like this. It might be spin and biased but it's not as bad as this.
The left might have its problems but they are nowhere near the level of the right today. By playing the "both sides" game, you dilute the source of the problem. It's very clear who that is so stop playing the games and trying to deflect the responsibility for this.
Are you able to read dates, you two? Not a single one of the examples dates back farther than George W. Bush, and there's a nice crop of them within this administration and the last Congress.
So your "back in the 1960s and 1970s" line is nothing but complete and utter horseshit. The rhetoric is the same on both sides, today. Either it's a source of violence from both sides, today, or it isn't. Peddling lies "because you are so obsessed with winning the argument and scoring points" doesn't help.
** Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun” ** Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!” ** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!” ** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard” ** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.” ** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat” ** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.” ** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.” ** Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”
These last four posts are a new low, even for you, Markadelphia. The bodies haven't even finished cooling off and you're trying to make cheap political points. None of the bullshit that you are spouting is going to bring that little girl back. You have no more idea than the rest of us the motives behind this man's attack, but you're all too happy to shoehorn it into your view of the left-right conflict. You disgust me.
Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion but that's not why I put those posts up here. You are looking at me through the perception of the people who post here (whose central goal is to win the argument and score points) and not listening to what I am trying to do which is define and solve the problem. When you have leaders of a movement acting as Palin, Limbaugh, and Beck do on a daily basis, there are going to be consequences.
The primary target of this attack said that herself in the video I just put up today. As has been demonstrated repeatedly, this has been going on for two years and will continue unless the leaders of the conservative movement cease with these tactics.
GuardDuck and DT, you're thinking like a conservative and ascribing that behavior to liberals. That's a very big mistake. I don't think it will be possible for you to have an unbiased perception but it would great if you tried.
It's real simple, folks. The right stops with this bullshit and I don't comment on it. I'm not sure it's possible given their nature.
Really? I've taken it more that you are preaching in the hopes of converting lost souls.
As to "defining the problem" I keep asking you for details - like how a rich person personally fucked you over for profit (or just for fun even). You never define this problem - other than there are some rich people you hate and some you respect.
I'd love to have more conversation about how you believe that everyone is as moved by advertising as you, and how you might reach beyond yourself as the major point of reference for such. Because your belief, as you have expressed it, is based on nothing but projection.
I'd love to see any evidence that a nutbag was motivated by any Republican leader to kill a moderate Democratic Representative AND a Republican-appointed federal judge, plus the other random bystanders.
You are a preacher of hate M, the mirror image of the hatred you see only in the right.
>whose central goal is to win the argument and score points
Let's review.
-Mark blames this all on right wingers, before the bodies are cold, and before the motivation of the shooter is even clear. (And it still isn't clear.) -Mark doesn't think that similar rhetoric and imagery coming from D's is a problem, or, at least, isn't be responsible. -Mark is certain that more of this rhetoric and imagery comes from the right than the left, even though: His only evidence for this is his own feeling, since providing examples of similar things from D's isn't difficult. He happens to be a left-winger, and so the notion that he's some kind of unbiased observer here is laughable.
All of this, and yet it's we who are trying to score points, we who are trying to "win the argument."
Intellectually dishonest doesn't even begin to describe you Mark.
Haplo9, none of what you are saying solves the problem. You are avoiding the culture that has built up on the right wing completely and deflecting it with smaller and lesser known examples. As I have said many times, the right are more numerous, organized, committed and definitely more armed than the left. Add in the rhetoric we here from the leaders and you have serious problems like we have seen in the last two years.
I've offered example after example and there's no doubt in my mind you will continue to reject them because you are in denial. And you can't not win an argument.
>As I have said many times, the right are more numerous,
You'd think that the right would own all three branches of government if that were the case, now wouldn't you..
>organized,
Do you have some way of measuring this? After all, the right lost all 3 branches of government not too long ago - was their organization just not effective for two years only there?
>committed
Heh, cute. A true believer like you, with your religion of big government and feeling over thinking, trying to tell us how the other guys are more committed. What do you use to measure that, by the way?
Mark, what you are doing is this. You have decided on a narrative, that being that the Right is Bad and causes Wicked Things. When some event happens, you fit it into your narrative. To this end you pump up evidence that supports your narrative, minimize or ignore evidence that doesn't, and try to claim that your own massively biased opinions are fact.
Why do you do this? I don't entirely know. In fact, answering that question is the only reason I continue to read you. I'm really curious what could cause a person to have such gaping holes in their ideology, yet be so confident in it that they would deflect all attempts to add reason to it.
There is certainly some intellectual laziness involved - when you have already decided how the world works, it's far easier to just slot events into your narrative than to look at each event in isolation and see what it might tell you. Yet you don't necessarily give the impression of phoning it in - as bad as your output is in terms of clarity of thought, it doesn't seem like you aren't trying at it.
There is certainly some ego involved too - your unwillingness to confront holes in your knowledge, to admit errors in your logic, and the importance that you place in being on the correct, moral side of things, even if it means you have to sacrifice intellectual honesty to do so.
Beyond that, it's a bit of a mystery though. What an odd creature.
Mark's first post began with a quote from one of victims and the chief target of the assassin, Haplo9, so your review above is inaccurate. Just another tactic to win the argument.
Haplo9...even if it means you have to sacrifice intellectual honesty to do so.
That may not be such a big sacrifice on M's part you realize. He doesn't seem too keen on actually dealing with questions that confront the foundation (as it were) of his viewpoint.
Hello there Angela, just curious, but did you decide that I probably don't know what is in your best interest and vice versa, or are you still confused on that?
Feel free to chime in sometime on how a rich person fucked you over for profit or fun.
> To this end you pump up evidence that supports your narrative, minimize or ignore evidence that doesn't, and try to claim that your own massively biased opinions are fact.
C'mon, Haplo! Marxy is just exercising "critical thinking!" Don't you remember the definition?
The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, , - , flexible, - , , prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit. Thus, educating good critical thinkers means working toward this ideal.
"habitually inquisitive" - Didn't you know that Mark was burning up the wires to get every last detail about the shooter, and tracked down every single tidbit before throwing up his post? He's so good that he managed to pull this off while the bodies were still warm!
"well-informed" - See above.
"prudent in making judgments" - Yep. Posting iron-clad conclusions while the bodies are still warm is VERY prudent.
"willing to reconsider" - Absolutely. Once the conclusions have been reached, no matter how much evidence comes in, there must be no reconsid… oh.
"persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit" - ROTFLMAO! Sorry, I just can't take it! MROTFLMAO!!
Oh, and those blank spaces? Apparently, they don't matter:
> To this end you pump up evidence that supports your narrative, minimize or ignore evidence that doesn't, and try to claim that your own massively biased opinions are fact.
C'mon, Haplo! Marxy is just exercising "critical thinking!" Don't you remember the definition?
The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, , - , flexible, - , , prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit. Thus, educating good critical thinkers means working toward this ideal.
"habitually inquisitive" - Didn't you know that Mark was burning up the wires to get every last detail about the shooter, and tracked down every single tidbit before throwing up his post? He's so good that he managed to pull this off while the bodies were still warm!
"well-informed" - See above.
"prudent in making judgments" - Yep. Posting iron-clad conclusions while the bodies are still warm is VERY prudent.
"willing to reconsider" - Absolutely. Once the conclusions have been reached, no matter how much evidence comes in, there must be no reconsid… oh.
"persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit" - ROTFLMAO! Sorry, I just can't take it! MROTFLMAO!!
40 comments:
D ad putting R Hayworth in rifle crosshairs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqB4tyvxWKA&feature=youtu.be
"I think it's tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers, unless the hostage gets harmed. In this case the hostage is the American people and I was not willing to see them get harmed," Obama on keeping taxes from increasing, December 6, 2010
"Here's the problem: It's almost like they've got -- they've got a bomb strapped to them and they've got their hand on the trigger. You don't want them to blow up. But you've got to kind of talk them, ease that finger off the trigger." Obama on banks, March 2009
DLC map targetting states:
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171
DCCC map (appears to have been scrubbed from their site, not surprising) targeting individual R's, from google cache:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:FH3bb1oRx54J:www.dccc.org/content/recovery+www.dccc.org/content/recovery&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
D ad putting R Hayworth in rifle crosshairs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqB4tyvxWKA&feature=youtu.be
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171
DLC map targetting states.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:FH3bb1oRx54J:www.dccc.org/content/recovery+www.dccc.org/content/recovery&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
DCCC map targetting specific Republicans, appears to have been scrubbed from their website, so gotten through google cache. They don't want true believers like Mark to have to walk anything back, you see.
"Here's the problem: It's almost like they've got -- they've got a bomb strapped to them and they've got their hand on the trigger. You don't want them to blow up. But you've got to kind of talk them, ease that finger off the trigger." Obama on banks, March 2009
"I think it's tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers, unless the hostage gets harmed. In this case the hostage is the American people and I was not willing to see them get harmed," Obama on keeping taxes from increasing, December 6, 2010
(Had to do multiple posts, blogger would otherwise eat them.) Lot of violent rhetoric and imagery out there, eh Mark?
Haplo9, you are completely missing the point. Try again.
Do tell Santa, do tell. All I see is a bunch of clowns using a sad incident to try to score points and claim that their side is better.
It's because you are so obsessed with winning the argument and scoring points that you don't understand what Mark is trying to do which is illustrate the severity of the discourse coming from the right. There is no equivalent for this on the left. There used to be, I'll grant you that, in the 1960s but Rachel Maddow doesn't say stuff like this. It might be spin and biased but it's not as bad as this.
Stop thinking of it in terms of Mark trying to "win" and start thinking of it in terms of him trying to solve a problem.
you don't understand what Mark is trying to do which is illustrate the severity of the discourse coming from the right.
Well I wish he'd actually do that then, because so far his illustrations haven't much to distinguish them from the illustrations of the left using the same level of discourse.
Nice posts Haplo. Others must have missed those examples you gave.
Hmm...looks like Blogger is back to not eating comments again. I sent them an email a couple of weeks back complaining about lost comments. I never heard anything back. It seems like your eaten comment somehow got corrected. Could this mean they fixed it? We'll see I guess.
"haven't much to distinguish them from the illustrations of the left using the same level of discourse."
Completely ridiculous. That's like saying that the sheriffs with the firehouses and the attack dogs in Alabama and Mississippi had their side as well. The left might have its problems but they are nowhere near the level of the right today. By playing the "both sides" game, you dilute the source of the problem. It's very clear who that is so stop playing the games and trying to deflect the responsibility for this.
There is no equivalent for this on the left. There used to be, I'll grant you that, in the 1960s but Rachel Maddow doesn't say stuff like this. It might be spin and biased but it's not as bad as this.
The left might have its problems but they are nowhere near the level of the right today. By playing the "both sides" game, you dilute the source of the problem. It's very clear who that is so stop playing the games and trying to deflect the responsibility for this.
Are you able to read dates, you two? Not a single one of the examples dates back farther than George W. Bush, and there's a nice crop of them within this administration and the last Congress.
So your "back in the 1960s and 1970s" line is nothing but complete and utter horseshit. The rhetoric is the same on both sides, today. Either it's a source of violence from both sides, today, or it isn't. Peddling lies "because you are so obsessed with winning the argument and scoring points" doesn't help.
Just out of curiosity, if someone shoots Sarah Palin, will you claim it's your fault because of this post?
Just askin'.
** Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
** Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.”
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
** Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”
These last four posts are a new low, even for you, Markadelphia. The bodies haven't even finished cooling off and you're trying to make cheap political points. None of the bullshit that you are spouting is going to bring that little girl back. You have no more idea than the rest of us the motives behind this man's attack, but you're all too happy to shoehorn it into your view of the left-right conflict. You disgust me.
Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion but that's not why I put those posts up here. You are looking at me through the perception of the people who post here (whose central goal is to win the argument and score points) and not listening to what I am trying to do which is define and solve the problem. When you have leaders of a movement acting as Palin, Limbaugh, and Beck do on a daily basis, there are going to be consequences.
The primary target of this attack said that herself in the video I just put up today. As has been demonstrated repeatedly, this has been going on for two years and will continue unless the leaders of the conservative movement cease with these tactics.
GuardDuck and DT, you're thinking like a conservative and ascribing that behavior to liberals. That's a very big mistake. I don't think it will be possible for you to have an unbiased perception but it would great if you tried.
It's real simple, folks. The right stops with this bullshit and I don't comment on it. I'm not sure it's possible given their nature.
Hilarious. Mark disgusts you but none of the comments from Limbaugh and the others do. Seriously f'd up.
define and solve the problem
Really? I've taken it more that you are preaching in the hopes of converting lost souls.
As to "defining the problem" I keep asking you for details - like how a rich person personally fucked you over for profit (or just for fun even). You never define this problem - other than there are some rich people you hate and some you respect.
I'd love to have more conversation about how you believe that everyone is as moved by advertising as you, and how you might reach beyond yourself as the major point of reference for such. Because your belief, as you have expressed it, is based on nothing but projection.
I'd love to see any evidence that a nutbag was motivated by any Republican leader to kill a moderate Democratic Representative AND a Republican-appointed federal judge, plus the other random bystanders.
You are a preacher of hate M, the mirror image of the hatred you see only in the right.
Reflect on that.
According to your own line of argument, your self-esteem is gonna suck rocks if this guy turns out to be an Obama voter, right?
>There is no equivalent for this on the left.
Um. Are you serious? Those comments at the start? Equivilents. I gave you a map, with crosshairs, with names of Republicans on it. Here it is again.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:FH3bb1oRx54J:www.dccc.org/content/recovery+www.dccc.org/content/recovery&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Click on a target, and you get a "targeted Republican" by name. That is not equivilent.. how?
>whose central goal is to win the argument and score points
Let's review.
-Mark blames this all on right wingers, before the bodies are cold, and before the motivation of the shooter is even clear. (And it still isn't clear.)
-Mark doesn't think that similar rhetoric and imagery coming from D's is a problem, or, at least, isn't be responsible.
-Mark is certain that more of this rhetoric and imagery comes from the right than the left, even though:
His only evidence for this is his own feeling, since providing examples of similar things from D's isn't difficult.
He happens to be a left-winger, and so the notion that he's some kind of unbiased observer here is laughable.
All of this, and yet it's we who are trying to score points, we who are trying to "win the argument."
Intellectually dishonest doesn't even begin to describe you Mark.
I was thinking intellectually bankrupt, but this guy has probably nailed Mark down:
"This is what comes of spewing hate, you fascist pig!"
he will ignore any information that does not conform to his precious worldview.
Haplo9, none of what you are saying solves the problem. You are avoiding the culture that has built up on the right wing completely and deflecting it with smaller and lesser known examples. As I have said many times, the right are more numerous, organized, committed and definitely more armed than the left. Add in the rhetoric we here from the leaders and you have serious problems like we have seen in the last two years.
I've offered example after example and there's no doubt in my mind you will continue to reject them because you are in denial. And you can't not win an argument.
As I have said many times, the right are more numerous, organized, committed
Saying it more often doesn't make it true. If it were, then every political office in the land would be occupied by a Republican.
>As I have said many times, the right are more numerous,
You'd think that the right would own all three branches of government if that were the case, now wouldn't you..
>organized,
Do you have some way of measuring this? After all, the right lost all 3 branches of government not too long ago - was their organization just not effective for two years only there?
>committed
Heh, cute. A true believer like you, with your religion of big government and feeling over thinking, trying to tell us how the other guys are more committed. What do you use to measure that, by the way?
>and definitely more armed than the left.
At last, something we agree on.
Mark, what you are doing is this. You have decided on a narrative, that being that the Right is Bad and causes Wicked Things. When some event happens, you fit it into your narrative. To this end you pump up evidence that supports your narrative, minimize or ignore evidence that doesn't, and try to claim that your own massively biased opinions are fact.
Why do you do this? I don't entirely know. In fact, answering that question is the only reason I continue to read you. I'm really curious what could cause a person to have such gaping holes in their ideology, yet be so confident in it that they would deflect all attempts to add reason to it.
There is certainly some intellectual laziness involved - when you have already decided how the world works, it's far easier to just slot events into your narrative than to look at each event in isolation and see what it might tell you. Yet you don't necessarily give the impression of phoning it in - as bad as your output is in terms of clarity of thought, it doesn't seem like you aren't trying at it.
There is certainly some ego involved too - your unwillingness to confront holes in your knowledge, to admit errors in your logic, and the importance that you place in being on the correct, moral side of things, even if it means you have to sacrifice intellectual honesty to do so.
Beyond that, it's a bit of a mystery though. What an odd creature.
Mark's first post began with a quote from one of victims and the chief target of the assassin, Haplo9, so your review above is inaccurate. Just another tactic to win the argument.
I've offered example after example
Just like all the examples you've offered about how you have been fucked over by rich people for their profit and/or amusement?
Haplo9 ...even if it means you have to sacrifice intellectual honesty to do so.
That may not be such a big sacrifice on M's part you realize. He doesn't seem too keen on actually dealing with questions that confront the foundation (as it were) of his viewpoint.
Hello there Angela, just curious, but did you decide that I probably don't know what is in your best interest and vice versa, or are you still confused on that?
Feel free to chime in sometime on how a rich person fucked you over for profit or fun.
> You are avoiding the culture that has built up on the right wing completely and deflecting it with smaller and lesser known examples.
Really? Where are the examples of actual hate crimes? You know, the ones that are actually worse than these?
http://bit.ly/fBAuvR
>Mark's first post began with a quote from one of victims and the chief target of the assassin, Haplo9, so your review above is inaccurate.
What exact part is inaccurate Angela?
Let's see…
We call the left (mostly) stupid. What's the correct remedy for stupid?
Marxaphasia calls the right (all) evil. What's the correct remedy for evil?
Which one is most likely to result in violence?
Geez, Haplo9....it 'feels' inaccurate cause it just does....
> To this end you pump up evidence that supports your narrative, minimize or ignore evidence that doesn't, and try to claim that your own massively biased opinions are fact.
C'mon, Haplo! Marxy is just exercising "critical thinking!" Don't you remember the definition?
The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, , - , flexible, - , , prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit. Thus, educating good critical thinkers means working toward this ideal.
"habitually inquisitive" - Didn't you know that Mark was burning up the wires to get every last detail about the shooter, and tracked down every single tidbit before throwing up his post? He's so good that he managed to pull this off while the bodies were still warm!
"well-informed" - See above.
"prudent in making judgments" - Yep. Posting iron-clad conclusions while the bodies are still warm is VERY prudent.
"willing to reconsider" - Absolutely. Once the conclusions have been reached, no matter how much evidence comes in, there must be no reconsid… oh.
"persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit" - ROTFLMAO! Sorry, I just can't take it! MROTFLMAO!!
Oh, and those blank spaces? Apparently, they don't matter:
trustful of reason
open-minded
fair-minded in evaluation
honest in facing personal biases
> To this end you pump up evidence that supports your narrative, minimize or ignore evidence that doesn't, and try to claim that your own massively biased opinions are fact.
C'mon, Haplo! Marxy is just exercising "critical thinking!" Don't you remember the definition?
The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, , - , flexible, - , , prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit. Thus, educating good critical thinkers means working toward this ideal.
"habitually inquisitive" - Didn't you know that Mark was burning up the wires to get every last detail about the shooter, and tracked down every single tidbit before throwing up his post? He's so good that he managed to pull this off while the bodies were still warm!
"well-informed" - See above.
"prudent in making judgments" - Yep. Posting iron-clad conclusions while the bodies are still warm is VERY prudent.
"willing to reconsider" - Absolutely. Once the conclusions have been reached, no matter how much evidence comes in, there must be no reconsid… oh.
"persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit" - ROTFLMAO! Sorry, I just can't take it! MROTFLMAO!!
Oh, and those blank spaces? Apparently, they don't matter:
trustful of reason
open-minded
fair-minded in evaluation
honest in facing personal biases
> You are avoiding the culture that has built up on the right wing
The "right wing" has nothing like the culture of open and consistent hatred demonstrated by the left:
http://bit.ly/fxwBO9
Post a Comment