Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: unspun; TigersEye; cripplecreek; Admin Moderator; Jim Robinson
You publish as valid a hit piece...

Exactly what is invalid about the article?

Perhaps you should re-read the hundreds of links pertaining to McCain and his temper tantrums over the years.

from the left...

Even blind, retarded squirrels find nuts on occasion.

Worth a zot?

If the Mods don't like the thread, then they may pull it. If they don't like the source, then they should probably add it to the list of automatically prohibited sources in FR's posting software.

18 posted on 12/30/2010 10:03:36 AM PST by rabscuttle385 (Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: rabscuttle385

Many on FR seem to increasingly believe only sources on “our” side should be posted.

This makes criticism much easier. You don’t have to point out a factual or logical flaw in the article itself, only that it is from the “wrong” side.

This is beginning to get ridiculous. If we only listen to each other, we can never learn much, and most especially we won’t become familiar with the arguments of the other side and therefore be able to more effectively refute them.

It is also an argument more widely associated with leftists. No need to refute the actual argument of a “right-winger.” Just pronounce him to be such and therefore both evil and wrong, and move on. Showed him!

I’ve even had posters claim a reference from wikipedia or Snopes is by definition unacceptable, since some material from those sites is indeed infected with liberalism. They generally don’t bother to post a more authoritative source as a refutation, just assume wiki is wrong and therefore they can continue to believe as they choose without any need to prove their point.

I will cheerfully agreed wikipedia should never be accepted as a final authority, especially on anything involving politics, but it does contain a great deal of good material and is often an excellent starting point for research.


23 posted on 12/30/2010 10:20:49 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: rabscuttle385
Exactly what is invalid about the article?

Try reading it without your eyes glazed over in Paultard glee. You might spot a few glaring variances from the truth if you did.

But, then again, you show a history of not being discriminating about where you post from - as long as you like the conclusions drawn, you don't care how they got there.

39 posted on 12/30/2010 1:04:40 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: rabscuttle385
So tell me, Rabs - since you are posting an article from a liberal who is upset with McCain's recent stance on DADT's repeal (McCain was against it), as a libertarian who supported the Libertarian candidate against McCain in the 2010 AZ Senate race - what is your position on the DADT repeal?

A simple support repeal / oppose repeal will suffice.

44 posted on 12/30/2010 1:21:43 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson