with all the legal stuff out there..supply and demand, the price will drop and risk will outweigh the profit....they'll move onto more lucrative markets....
Colorado dope dispensaries preparing to accept food stamps
- Thread starter AMonger
- Start date
First, just like with booze, there will be a market for tax free pot. Second, they are already in human trafficing, kidnapping and other drugs. Never forget that the end of prohibition has not gotten rid of the BATFE OR moonshiners. There is a very large market for tax free cigarettes and, with each each tax increase, that market grows larger.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Your argument is illogical ...
If it is commonly known, then surely there must many websites which have noted this fact and have illustrated the examples, clearly outlining the actual, specific problems that you claim exist ...
Surely the political opposition would not waste such a chance to expose their opponents for what they truly are ...
Ought to be just a quick "Google" or "Bing" away ... minimal effort, maximum validation for your case.
No, I think you just know (or suspect) that you have likely bought the farm on this one ... and you just don't have what it takes to man up ...
Last edited:
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
No, I came to the conclusion from the first few times I read their crap, finding it obviously slanted. Being that was many years ago, I can hardly be expected to remember them. So I did a quick Google search and here's some reading material for you.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2195441/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2195441/posts
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
A wing-nut website ... which refers to another website (and doesn't link the specific article at the other site) and then lists all manner of allegations ... with no links to the actual snopes articles in question.
Pile on a whole lot of ad hominem and basically we are left with ... a steaming pile of crap ...
Here's a good example of the mental derangement that occurs when one relies on self-serving political ideology (rather than an honest assessment of facts) that was taken from the OP in the post you linked (circa 2009):
Well ... here's several alternative views to the Boobus Americanus Johnson swinger that wrote the OP you link:
Sadr calls on Maliki to visit protest sites in Anbar - Al-Monitor: the Pulse of the Middle East
Politics undermine Iraq's judiciary :: Middle East Forum
Testing the Independence of the Iraqi Judiciary: The Batikh Case « Iraq and Gulf Analysis
A few dozen? A few DOZEN?
OK, first it was just a few...
...based on the first few times you read any of their stuff...
And now, suddenly, it takes a few DOZEN articles to find a measly three biased articles?
Having to read perhaps a few DOZEN articles to find this obvious and widely known bias seems a little incongruous with having readily seen it after just a few readings the very first few times you read their articles. It seems to me, based on your own statements, that all it would take is reading just a few articles to find this widely known bias.
Seems more like that you're just making it up as you go along.
You've made a claim of bias, yet are unwilling to offer up any proof of such bias. That's known as an unsubstantiated allegation. It is an allegation made of emotion rather than one of intellect, critical thinking and reason. Sure, you post a link to a Website that you believe will substantiate your allegation, but the Web site is nothing more than one long rant of more unsubstantiated allegations and biased opinion, some of them purely fabricated and grossly mischaracterized. The Web site you linked basically says, since Snopes isn't conservatively biased they are therefore ergo thus liberally biased, which is what I stated earlier in Post #6. The various and sundry claims that Snopes is biased all come from conservatives who don't like the fact that Snopes isn't conservatively biased, that Snopes is apolitical rather than conservative. They believe that apolitical equals liberal bias, which is ridiculous on the face of it.
In summary, you have made a claim that you are unable to substantiate. Your claim is rejected.
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Their liberal slant is readily apparent to any sensible person who isn't predisposed to not see it. It's self-evident. The perception exists for a reason.
Your rejection of my claim is rejected.
Just three examples, man, that's all I asked for. And you couldn't do it.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
The effort required to produce it--going through maybe 100 articles to find the occasional biased one--to persuade a couple of usually reasonable guys who have taken leave of their senses isn't worth it.
Again, if you've read an occasional article of theirs, it's self-evident.
Again, if you've read an occasional article of theirs, it's self-evident.
A 100 articles to find the occasional biased one. Can you not see how ridiculous a statement that is in concert with the assertion that they are biased, and that it's widely known? You're starting to come off sounding a little nut-job wacko there, my friend.
I haven't taken leave of my senses at all. I'm about as pragmatic as one can get, and not only can see more than one side to an issue, or at least give it a fair shot, but looking for, and recognizing a bias, is a critical part of being pragmatic. It's the only way to separate opinion from fact, which is the only way to see the issue for what they are and to be able to evaluate them and the positions people take. For example, you have a bias against Snope, and thus presents your opinions about them as fact.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Ok. I get it. I was a little slow on the uptake. I should've caught on earlier that you have been screwing with me. Hope it's been entertaining.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Hmmm ... yeah ... I don't think so ...
The only one I see here that might be taking leave of their senses is you ...
Since you seem to be unwilling to substantiate your claim, let me see if I can provide some evidence that might tend to falsify it:
Snopes 'Exposed' - Is Snopes.com Biased? - Urban Legends
Snopes.com is a secret tool of the Democratic party to promote Barack Obama-Fiction!
Snopes.com - Factcheck.org
Snopes, 'Liberal Bias,' and Trusting the Internet | The Skeptical Libertarian Blog
I did find a couple in the top eight results that seemed - just from the title - to agree with (not necessarily support) your assertion:
Snopes.com biased for Obama? Check it out for yourself at Politics Debate Forum, topic 1284141
The Indisputable Liberal Bias of Snopes - Stormfront
After looking at the content at the page at "The Cure Zone" (Politics Debate Forum) - and what it links to for substantiation - I can understand why you might not want to cite it, and ... well ... the one from Stormfront was pretty much self-evident as to why you'd want to avoid it, without even having to click on it. After reading it, it's easy to see why one would want to avoid it (emotional ranting) ... even if it didn't carry the stench of the host site.
Interestingly, you had to skip over all of the above to get to the one from the knuckle-dragging, mouth-breather Freeper crowd.
Yeah ... no cherry-picking or selection bias there ...
LOL ... only in wingnut land ... as evidenced by you linking to the den of loonies as a substantiation for your charge ...
Last edited:
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Well, being that it's self[/I)- evident, other evidence is kind of irrelevant.
As far as the example above, it's plain they weren't conjured up to prop up the 0bama administration. I stopped following Snopes links because of their bias long before the nation had heard of him.
I find it extremely unlikely they've changed since then.
Relying on a Snopes article is like reading a good story someone forwards, but it's from WND or News With Views or something like that. Don't you go, "That's great, but do you have a more reliable link?" Same with Snopes. They're as reliable as WND; they just work the other side of the street.
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
LOL ... now you've went and boxed yourself into a corner ...
Nice move Ace ...
First you made the claim that "the first few times I read their crap" you found it "obviously slanted" ... but you don't seem to be able to provide any actual examples of this - you know, like the specific ones you personally observed - and argue it from that basis.
Now you want to assert that it's "self-evident" ... and therefore it requires no other proof or evidence ...
Hilarious ...
The problem is that we aren't talking about something that is metaphysical or an abstract philosophical concept (We hold these truths ... etc.) with no connection to the real world ...
We're talking about actual conduct that did occur, composed of specific acts (taking positions, refuting and debunking certain myths) that took place in the real world.
Further, you state that this slant or bias is "obvious" ...
If that were truly the case, then it ought to be fairly easy to show actual, specific examples of that.
I mean you did base your conclusion on something didn't you ?
It wasn't just nothing right ?
You see any problem here ?
Uh-huh ...
You admit that you are operating off of a conclusory opinion from quite some time ago ... and not off of anything more recent than 8 or so years ago ...
IOW: a preconceived notion ...
LOL ... that comparison doesn't even fit in the same universe or dimension...
I'd suggest you do a little self-study in logical argument, with particular attention given to logical fallacies ... and then come back and see us when you've finished ...
Last edited:
KickStarter6
Veteran Expediter
Can't we all get along? Why do we always attack each other for words on a forum? Is great we can.
Support the troops!
Support the troops!
10/4 on that. I have got 10 copies of the following for wayward posters,lol.
How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie | 9780671027032 | Paperback | Barnes & Noble