bullets13

You won't hear any arguments from me. I think the concept of an OPTION of an affordable (not free) government provided healthcare for those who can't get it elsewhere is a good idea, but the execution of it in Obamacare is a travesty as best i can tell. I'm sure there will be people who benefit from it, but i know a lot of people who's cost of insurance has gone up. while i still believe that insurance companies have taken advantage of a bad situation to increase their profit margin, there's still no doubt that Obamacare is costing the rest of us through our premiums.

    I can guarantee you that this works both ways, having grown up in the deep south.

I was so upset i gave $50. But seriously, i'm not big on the whole global warming thing. it seems to be getting cooler the last few years to me. but there's no way for me to really validate this particular article. I can either believe it on face value or just ignore it. I'm certainly not going to do the research it would take to either refute or substantiate the claims.

it's a liberal college. she's the opposite as that. aTm would probably protest Obama. I don't see it as that big of a deal. I'll be happy to go do it and say anything they want me to say for $35K and an honorary doctorate, though.

    the article here pretty much says it's a non-issue too. that's why i was confused about both the need for the article to begin with, as well as NOTB's reaction to it.

    bwahahahahahaha. too late! thanks laflamablanco. now you have about 50 articles from righty articles on the site you need to go dispute due to THEIR questionable origins.

you read the article, right? am i missing something there?

    That's funny. All of the games that matter in SEC football are already going to be on primetime. LHN is being bundled with SECN because there's a strong demand for both in the south, and by putting them together, the package is that much stronger.

doesn't sound like those who were there were too bothered by it.

i'm not seeing those articles on this website.  i see the ones that the right posts on here that skew things right or report half truths, or just spew out hatred and vitriol. there's simply nobody on the left that is posting those articles that is active on this site.  if there was, i would say the same thing to them, although i would not need to, because ten of you guys would beat me to it.   i do believe when big girl was posting some crazy stuff awhile back, i argued with her on some of her crazy lefty articles. 

You're an intelligent man. You can look at a website is at least semi-reliable. ;)

The copout is stating that the onus of proof belongs to those who want a real source rather than those who post the story from a less than credible source. Why I would I waste time arguing the story when I don't even know if it's real? And to criticize me for expecting that? Laughable at best. I don't know how many stories have been dismissed by righties on here over the years because they were from the Huffington Post or other "liberal" sites over the years, but it's a LOT. Heck, I've seen articles dismissed because they were on CNN. But I question a source that's so far right it thinks limbaugh's a bit too liberal, and is so irrelevant it resorts to asking for money at the bottom of every "news piece", and I'm just making an excuse not to debate.

The problem that some from the right have is that they feel that Fox offers neutral, unbiased coverage.  you only think it's neutral because you agree with it.  while i feel Fox is a legitimate news source, it's waaaaaay right.  just because another news channel does not devote 1/2 of it's news time/articles/shows to discrediting democrats and the president does not mean that they're all ultra left wing biased. 

I call BS.  You guys post whatever you want from fake, biased news sites, and it's MY responsibility to prove it false?  That's ridiculous.  It's your (i know you didn't post it, but you're supporting it) article, and your issue, and the responsibility falls on you guys to post it from a responsible, verifiable news source.  Do that, and add a little weight to YOUR argument. 

He was a great college QB.  i think he has too much going against him to be a great pro QB.  He's too small to be a running QB, but he's probably too short to be a pocket QB.  The things that made him most valuable in college will get him killed in the NFL.  now when he eludes one guy in the pocket, there are going to be 3 more waiting to smash him.  and half the people on the field are as fast as him now.  I don't think he'll be a total bust like Tebow, but i don't see him being more than a QB who starts for a few years after he's drafted, and then plays backup for awhile before leaving the league.  But, i could be wrong.  I just think that after watching him play several games, that if he hadn't had one of the best WRs in college bailing him out on jumpballs, he might actually be considered a 3rd or 4th rounder right now.

Forgive me for not taking the time to read the National Enquirer (or CNS, or western journalism for that matter) on the off chance they get it right.  Even when they bring up a legitimate argument, they're so skewed to the right that they can't present the story accurately or objectively.  and that's if you can find a semi-accurate story amidst all of the lies and propoganda. the same holds true for websites of the far left.  while there is an occasional mistake from the real news sources, and while different news sources lean different ways, their stories are generally fairly objective, fairly accurate, and fairly legitimate. 

But I do appreciate you providing a link to a real news source.

Sorry, just getting back on here... I'll just refer you to westend's response. I don't think I can word my opinion any better than that.

:)

Sorry I lumped you in. Much of my evidence was lost in the crash anyway. I'm just saying, the political forum is full of threads from biased "news sites" and then everyone gets all in an uproar about them. When I didn't, you seemed taken aback.

the point being, you guys post dozens of posts like this a week.  the only difference is that they say what you guys want to hear.  but that doesn't make them any more verifiable or legitimate than this one. 

    absolutely, as it totally negates the content.

[Hidden Content]

it reads like a bogus propaganda article, it's definitely on a bogus propaganda site, and it's on a topic that many people really aren't that worried about these days anyway. at some point you guys are going to realize that no matter how many of these articles you guys post and high five each other about, nobody else takes them seriously.

    How concerned would you be if i started posting issues brought up on liberal websites? and i'm not talking about cnn and the like, i mean liberal blog-type websites ran by random lefties on the internet. if you want me to be concerned, at least post a fox article. they're clearly biased conservative, but they're a legitimate news source.