Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
A little more.

You can't be serious.
You can't be serious.
You used "widely accepted." Same thing.
Here's my evidence. Where's yours?
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
So what am I? I am evengelical Christian that believes in Creationism... yet, I have astral projected (no kidding) on greater scales than perhaps anyone you've read about. Blow your mind stuff.. no drugs.
Bash, but a serious ?
Niall Ferguson
David Brooks
George Will
We need to get stoned together. Badly.
https://bit.ly/NCtf99 Click images at the to left. It should only take you a couple of minutes to confirm that my sample isn't biased. If you find any that are openly critical of liberals (other than this weeks) or that overtly praise conservatives I have yet to see them. Their bias is blatant.I don't have to produce evidence. I merely stated skepticism but did not make any specific assertion. You are the one who made the assertion so you bear the burden of evidence.
That said, one can probably easily cherry pick Newsweek covers to "prove" a point. I'm skeptical that the covers you have posted are a representative sample and I tend to think think are more likely a biased sample. Can your prove this isn't a biased sample?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://bit.ly/NCtf99 Click images at the to left. It should only take you a couple of minutes to confirm that my sample isn't biased. If you find any that are openly critical of liberals (other than this weeks) or that overtly praise conservatives I have yet to see them. Their bias is blatant.
https://bit.ly/NCtf99 Click images at the to left. It should only take you a couple of minutes to confirm that my sample isn't biased. If you find any that are openly critical of liberals (other than this weeks) or that overtly praise conservatives I have yet to see them. Their bias is blatant.
Author of the demonstrably error-riddled piece this week. Also he's been wrong about everything related to economics in the last several years.
Practically the definition of fairness bias. Although his talks with Gail Collins are much better than his columns or appearances.
I especially liked it when he wrote that article about how people who wear blue jeans and/or play video games shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Oh yeah that happened. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/15/AR2009041502861.html
https://bit.ly/NCtf99 Click images at the to left. It should only take you a couple of minutes to confirm that my sample isn't biased. If you find any that are openly critical of liberals (other than this weeks) or that overtly praise conservatives I have yet to see them. Their bias is blatant.
Just for ****s and giggles I went through an old back-issue place and found some examples just because I think the previous exercise was somewhat blatantly distasteful. I did this going through week by week, for older years scans of the covers don't exist for many issues. It wasn't exactly hard to find negative covers for Dems or positive covers for conservatives. Again, I'm not taking a position on the magazine in general (I don't read it) but the case seemed oversold.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
(Gary Condit, of course, was a Democrat witch-hunted out of office over Chandra Levy. Today we know he had nothing to do with her disappearance)![]()
I don't think you guys get it. The most respectable opinion that anyone can have on science comes from an author of speculative science fiction and thrillers that believed in astral projection, clairvoyance, and aura viewing.
To be fair, Crichton does have a fundamental point: those who have heterodox views and can then prove them are the science heroes. Pearl Watson is misapplying the concept though. Darwin HAD a heterodox view and thats' why he's a scientific pioneer. Svante Arrhenius was the first to propose a global warming theory (in 1896!) and it was a heterodox view at the time. Those are the people who fought against established views and had their ideas win out through empirical testing. Those who are presently fighting against evolution and global warming aren't brave pioneers. Those are people still fighting previous generations' battles that are already over.