Search results

Your anecdotal evidence isn't sufficient to disprove the comment. However, I think the 2,000+ who cheered the troop's question does prove at least something the contrary.

One of the guys in that regiment (the 278th) is a principal in my school district - no shit. In fact, it might have been Wilson, I think his name started with a W. A little hometown pride.

"I really take exception to these remarks. You are an outrageously anti-Christian Bigot. You are exactly everything you accuse Christians of being." I take exception to being called a bigot. I can and will back up each and every claim made in my 3-paragraph post. "They talk of a hidden...

Alot of times Christians like to play the victim of a cruel, secular society out to destroy all morality and throw the country into a vacuum of Bible-burning Christ-haters. They talk of a hidden "homosexual agenda" (ironic as it is for these Christians to speak of others having a hidden agenda)...

Alright then... What were we debating again?

"So, when did sblymnl mention scientific fact? Not until after I posted. Fact and scientific fact have difference, as I mentioned before." Your definition of fact is wholly impractical. Nothing can be proven "absolutely true." That animals exist - let alone that they evolved - can't be proven...

Not true. Evolution is a fact, and a fact does not necessarily, in scientific terms, equate to being a law. Let's go to the National Academy of Sciences for the practical scientific definition of fact: "In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes...

On the subject, people who think creationism and evolution should be taught together are stupid. Evolution is a default theory [fact] that is not based on any childish fantasy -- excuse me, religion. "Creationism" is something of a misnomer simply because it's so vague. Creationism caters...

What are you trying to imply? That corporations don't abuse their workers because it's not in their best interest to do so?

Back to reality... I'm so glad we have corporations to give us jobs out of the goodness of their hearts, only to decide later that it would be much more profitable to fire us and ship our jobs overseas where the labor laws are more lax and the employees can be worked longer hours in worse...

New York Times - "Corporate PAC's Backed Republicans 10 to 1" I would have never guessed, would you?

I seem to remember at the first debate Bush said something about Kerry using "pre-September 10th mentality"...

Are T-shirts acceptable too? "I was the victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy and all I got was this lousy President"

"The bulk of what I have posted questions Swifty's credibility and attacks the bias and logical flaws in his posts." I must say, all I gleaned from this exchange was that anyone who has a political stance is not to be trusted. All persuasive essays, editorials, and op-ed pieces - even if they...

John Kerry = went to Vietnam. George Bush = avoided Vietnam. All that needs to be said.

"It draws some of your motives and your bias into question, which are legitimate ways to discredit an argument." Let me give you an example of why this is horrible logic. Let's say that I tell you that the Nazis killed millions of people for no reason other than that they were Jewish. At that...

But you've got the sources I link. They're in the post. What you're asking for is the source of the sources of the links. And that, I'm sorry to say, has no relevance. Once again, if you intend to disprove anything those articles say, I'd start now. Otherwise you're just going to be scrambling...

Well, let's get back to the original issue: Refute the news articles - prove that they are untrue - or don't bother. Are we clear on that?

That was the same one as the NAACP, which, as I mentioned, was somewhat of a liberal source. But let's look at the Washington Post. The BBC, Reuter's, local news stations... those aren't biased, and that's the bulk of what I posted.

"By first attacking the source, one can first cull out the weak arguments and then concentrate more upon the compelling, better sourced arguments." Yeah, that's fine. My problem is the GOP tends to stop at step 1: discredit the source and hope the rest takes care of itself. Sadly, it usually...