So why should I not be ticked off with the GOP right now?

[A'isha]

???

How is any of this relevant?

It explains why noting information sourced from the Manhattan Institute is unreliable due to bias is an entirely legitimate criticism.

 

[uke2se]

An excellent feat of mindreading or pure imagination. What he actually said,

"I wouldn't accept info from crappy sources"

and

"...gets its information from the Manhattan Institute."

Why is your imagination better than mine? Both quoted snippets fit in perfectly with what I "imagined" him to say. The "information" comes from an untrustworthy source, thus we can't put much stock in the "information". Critical thinking 101. Feel free to come up with a less untrustworthy source, and we'll have a good look at it.

 

[Magyar]

Of course, because the problems from Obamacare that thousands of other people are going through, aren't your problem. The important thing is that you got yours.

Things like the people without health insurance that have had their hours reduced because of the employer required Obamacare coverage. Now they still have no insurance AND lower income.

Oh and the thousands of people that have higher insurance costs due to Obamacare required additional coverage added to their policy. Stuff they don't want or need.

But hey, don't you worry your little self about them. You got yours.

Yea well the thing is that for any evidence that you may or may not produce about companies cutting their hours to avoid aca i can point to other one that are doing the exact opposite.

I notice you havent posted any yet. So ill go first
http://kgou.org/post/different-response-obamacare-increase-hours-insure-more-workers

Here is a company that is doing the exact opposite so where is your proof?

But more importantly. Your whole theory is eronious, because its far more likely that the reaactions of corporations have far more to do with their metallity than anything else.

I will put 2 to 1 for example that no matter what you would do with health care the walmart maggots and the cock brothers would do everything in their power to hose their employees and the aca has nothing to do with that.

 

[Neally]

Why is your imagination better than mine? Both quoted snippets fit in perfectly with what I "imagined" him to say. The "information" comes from an untrustworthy source, thus we can't put much stock in the "information". Critical thinking 101. Feel free to come up with a less untrustworthy source, and we'll have a good look at it.

LOL

Source A - Nope sorry they're untrustworthy.
Source B - Nope sorry they're untrustworthy.
Source C - Nope sorry they're untrustworthy.
Source D - Nope sorry they're untrustworthy.
Source E - Nope sorry they're untrustworthy.
Source F - Nope sorry they're untrustworthy.

See isn't Ad hominem easy? Fun too!

 

[uke2se]

LOL

Source A - Nope sorry they're untrustworthy.
Source B - Nope sorry they're untrustworthy.
Source C - Nope sorry they're untrustworthy.
Source D - Nope sorry they're untrustworthy.
Source E - Nope sorry they're untrustworthy.
Source F - Nope sorry they're untrustworthy.

See isn't Ad hominem easy? Fun too!

Fixed that for you.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

I notice you havent posted any yet. So ill go first
http://kgou.org/post/different-response-obamacare-increase-hours-insure-more-workers

That's not an acceptable source.

 

[A'isha]

That's not an acceptable source.

It's more accurate and dependable than the Manhattan Institute.

 

[Neally]

That's not an acceptable source.

Exactly. Crappy, untrustworthy. Gimme another.

See isn't Ad hominem easy? Fun too!

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

It's more accurate and dependable than the Manhattan Institute.

No it isn't.

 

[uke2se]

Exactly. Crappy, untrustworthy. Gimme another.

Nope. You are being unreasonable because you don't like that we were critical of one of your sources. That's ok, though. If what you say is true, you can easily get another, less biased, source.

Or we can deconstruct the two different sources and all present arguments for why either is untrustworthy. That would be off-topic here, but we could do it in another thread.

 

[A'isha]

No it isn't.

Suit yourself.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Republicans sound like wife-beaters asking their victims "why did you make me punch you in the mouth?"

 

[gnome]

What you need is a good source to argue the reliability of the other source

...and turtles all the way down.

Non-snarky thought: instead of trying to prove whether a source is reliable, I find myself better off checking the facts presented on the issue at hand--unless they are the primary and only source of that "fact".

Except for infowars, daily mail and naturalnews. They all objectively suck

 

[Neally]

Nope. You are being unreasonable because you don't like that we were critical of one of your sources.

Sorry, your opinion is crappy and untrustworthy. Try again.

See isn't Ad hominem easy? Fun too!

What you need is a good source to argue the reliability of the other source

...and turtles all the way down.

Non-snarky thought: instead of trying to prove whether a source is reliable, I find myself better off checking the facts presented on the issue at hand--unless they are the primary and only source of that "fact".

Yes. Thank you. I guess the Ad hominem fallacy is just too easy to use when you've run out of rational arguments.

 

[triforcharity]

In prior shutdowns, some federal departments kept operating because their funding bills had already been passed. Did Congress manage to fund any departments or agencies this year?

I think the military, and mission critical aspects of civilians that work with the military, the FAA, (Post office isn't funded with taxpayer money, so they're exempt) and a few federal health organizations like the VA, but only the medical side of the VA IIRC.

 

[A'isha]

I think the military, and mission critical aspects of civilians that work with the military, the FAA, (Post office isn't funded with taxpayer money, so they're exempt) and a few federal health organizations like the VA, but only the medical side of the VA IIRC.

And the ACA.

 

[Upchurch]

LOL

Source A - Nope sorry they're untrustworthy.
Source B - Nope sorry they're untrustworthy.
Source C - Nope sorry they're untrustworthy.
Source D - Nope sorry they're untrustworthy.
Source E - Nope sorry they're untrustworthy.
Source F - Nope sorry they're untrustworthy.

See isn't Ad hominem easy? Fun too!

Except I didn't do that, did i? I accepted and conceded your other point and its source.

I shouldn't have to repeat this, but I rejected your source because it mostly left out the subsidies information, except for one brief reference to an opinion by a largely biased secondary source. I rejected you claim because it was based on poor, crappy if you will, source information.

 

[12AX7]

See isn't Ad hominem easy? Fun too!

See isn't Ad hominem easy? Fun too!

See isn't Ad hominem easy? Fun too!

So this means your argument is out of gas.

 

[Spindrift]

So this means your argument is out of gas.

Or full of hot air?

 

[Morrigan]

Exactly. Crappy, untrustworthy. Gimme another.

See isn't Ad hominem easy? Fun too!

Oh come on. If I post something and use rense.com or infowars.com as a source, and someone tells me to get a better one, you're gonna say that's unreasonable?

If a source has a history of being biased and unreliable, it's valid criticism to distrust information that comes with it. In fact it would be foolish to take anything it says at face value.