Seriously, would you go to www.obamasucks.org to read "Why the ACA will hurt America"?

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2014 4:27:00 PM (view original):
So you're saying you would go to www.obamasucks.org to read up on the damaging effects of the ACA.

Seems like a waste of time as I'm sure you can find a somewhat less obvious biased website to read up on the ACA.    Much like I don't need to know what a blogger for Pesky Pole thinks about Jeter. 

Posted by bad_luck on 2/27/2014 2:27:00 PM (view original):
I would judge the merits of the piece by the piece itself, not necessarily by what else has been written on the site. That article on Jeter was right. Jeter is somewhat overrated. Jeter was not good defensively. Jeter is probably just as selfish as the next superstar athlete.

So yes, tec, I could possibly do that. Yesterday there was a very good piece on tax reform in the usually insane WSJ op/ed pages. That specific column wasn't biased or deserving of dismissal just because it was published in a normally very biased section of a conservative newspaper.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/27/2014 4:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2014 4:27:00 PM (view original):
So you're saying you would go to www.obamasucks.org to read up on the damaging effects of the ACA.

Seems like a waste of time as I'm sure you can find a somewhat less obvious biased website to read up on the ACA.    Much like I don't need to know what a blogger for Pesky Pole thinks about Jeter. 

I would not go to that site looking for something to read. But if someone presented me with a well reasoned and factually based article, I wouldn't dismiss it without considering its merits, regardless of the original site it was published on.

Wouldn't you actually have to read the article to know if it was well-reasoned and factually based?

If I started with "Hey, badluck, I got this article from www.obamasucks.org that explains the damaging effects of ACA.  It's a good read" would you bother to read it?

Posted by rsp777 on 2/27/2014 4:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/27/2014 2:27:00 PM (view original):
I would judge the merits of the piece by the piece itself, not necessarily by what else has been written on the site. That article on Jeter was right. Jeter is somewhat overrated. Jeter was not good defensively. Jeter is probably just as selfish as the next superstar athlete.

So yes, tec, I could possibly do that. Yesterday there was a very good piece on tax reform in the usually insane WSJ op/ed pages. That specific column wasn't biased or deserving of dismissal just because it was published in a normally very biased section of a conservative newspaper.

That's what I thought and that's why I posted it. Are any of you so dumb as to think I didn't realize WHERE the piece came from? The point is that, outside of NYC, I think that piece represents the opinions of most baseball fans in regard to Jeter. I think it was a pretty solid summation, regardless of the supposed "bias" of the source.

Would you like to post some supporting evidence of "that piece represents the opinions of most baseball fans in regard to Jeter"?

Maybe you can pull an article from www.bleedingredsoxred.com to support your theory.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2014 6:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/27/2014 4:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2014 4:27:00 PM (view original):
So you're saying you would go to www.obamasucks.org to read up on the damaging effects of the ACA.

Seems like a waste of time as I'm sure you can find a somewhat less obvious biased website to read up on the ACA.    Much like I don't need to know what a blogger for Pesky Pole thinks about Jeter. 

I would not go to that site looking for something to read. But if someone presented me with a well reasoned and factually based article, I wouldn't dismiss it without considering its merits, regardless of the original site it was published on.

Wouldn't you actually have to read the article to know if it was well-reasoned and factually based?

If I started with "Hey, badluck, I got this article from www.obamasucks.org that explains the damaging effects of ACA.  It's a good read" would you bother to read it?

Skimmed.  The parts around the links.    Much like you'd look at www.obamasucks.org and ignore the rest.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2014 6:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rsp777 on 2/27/2014 4:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/27/2014 2:27:00 PM (view original):
I would judge the merits of the piece by the piece itself, not necessarily by what else has been written on the site. That article on Jeter was right. Jeter is somewhat overrated. Jeter was not good defensively. Jeter is probably just as selfish as the next superstar athlete.

So yes, tec, I could possibly do that. Yesterday there was a very good piece on tax reform in the usually insane WSJ op/ed pages. That specific column wasn't biased or deserving of dismissal just because it was published in a normally very biased section of a conservative newspaper.

That's what I thought and that's why I posted it. Are any of you so dumb as to think I didn't realize WHERE the piece came from? The point is that, outside of NYC, I think that piece represents the opinions of most baseball fans in regard to Jeter. I think it was a pretty solid summation, regardless of the supposed "bias" of the source.

Would you like to post some supporting evidence of "that piece represents the opinions of most baseball fans in regard to Jeter"?

Maybe you can pull an article from www.bleedingredsoxred.com to support your theory.