I agree, they are conservative and there's probably an axe to grind. So show me where they are incorrect in what they wrote. Come on, don't be timid. We agree thus far.
Study: Networks Bury Own Poll Results to Protect Obama
- Thread starter Tsing Tao
- Start date
I agree, they are conservative and there's probably an axe to grind. So show me where they are incorrect in what they wrote. Come on, don't be timid. We agree thus far.
Lol, you started this with your nonsense re Berkeley. So tell us (everyone is watching!) where they got the analysis of minimum wage increases in San Francisco wrong.
I told you in the thread - and I didn't say it was wrong, I simply explained that a city the size of San Fran is better able to absorb a relatively small (because that's what it was) increase in minimum wage over a period of 10 years (only $2 and change). That's not that big deal at all. I further indicated that inflation in San Fran for the 10 year period was quite considerable (and that's just the published inflation numbers) and that was likely where the increased labor costs were manifesting.
I said all that in the thread. Would you like to debate my point there or here? After we're done with that, I'm assuming you'll offer information on where the Media Research Center has gone wrong with their data, like I've asked now three times.
No one reads past your snark, so you defeated yourself.
Yeah, I was expecting that from you, tool.
Oops, typo.
So, to recap: You have no dispute on the media issue (which is good - I like it when we agree), you accept my response on the minimum wage thread (that's two!) and you're not surprised a FAIL pic has been attributed to you (three in a row!!!).
What a beat down you've just received!
Last edited:
He was bang on, the source of the data leans right and does have an axe to grind - but that doesn't dispute the data by itself. Of course, Ricter doesn't usually go after the data, just the source, and then cries foul when you go after the source on his side of the argument, despite providing commentary on why you have issue with the data.
And there's always that he'll call you out for "snark", yet use snark continually in return. It's like debating a 12 year old.
You're right, though. Typical Rictard M.O.