RBG says:

Funny, Rick Sanchez seems to have no problem with his own station’s marketing bumfodder that “unfairly maligned” and continues to malign the competition.

“The Most Trusted Name in News,”
they brag.

Well not according to the people who vote with their eyeballs as reflected by viewership numbers.

“In terms of regular viewers (Nielsen Ratings), CNN rates as the United States’ number two cable news network. (Nielsen Cume Ratings).”
www:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN

“2008: Channel by Channel
Fox News, the ratings leader…”
www:tinyurl.com/nmnfok

Despite its domestic standing, CNN remains a distant second in international news coverage, reaching just over half of the audience of the older BBC World News.
www:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN

CNN, Rick Sanchez…
You
Lie!

It’s like their other bit of marketing hyperbole:

“CNN = Politics” “The Best Political Team on Television”

Now Sanchez, go back to reporting on fluff other than your own belly button lint.

RBG

Alfred1 says:

#102 Not tolling or willfully misunderstanding…try stating your reference and don’t presume we know what you are thinking…

And you are misstating my position, I DO NOT attribute everything bad to Obama…I see a motive behind his actions that is bad for “we the people.”

I noted his campaign was against the war, deficits…he ran as pragmatic centrist who would go line by line and delete government programs that don’t work.

Instead we have a war mongerer who budgets the biggest deficits ever, who doesn’t let anyone read bills that are filled with programs that don’t work, earmarks, political kickbacks…pure waste…

And our money is being debased, which seems to be purposeful…and historically ushers in despotism…

The growing consensus of ecconomists is his stimulus isn’t working…and we really need the money spent wisely, not wasted…but is he reversing course? No…he will continue to throw away billions of borrowed dollars.

It requires complete ignorance of history, or willful malice, to do to our economy, what Obama & crew are doing.

Alfred1 says:

#102 Logic is the study of arguments.
No, that’s Rhetoric. Logic is reasoning.

Logic, from the Greek λογική (logiké)[1] is the art and science of reasoning.[2] More specifically, it is defined by the Penguin Encyclopedia to be “The formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning”.[3] -Wikipedia

In other words, logic is the study of arguments.

There is formal logic, the study of patterns, and informal…the latter is what we do in debates, arguments…

TO call this correct definition “Rhetoric” is odd.

Mr. Fusion says:

#105, Alphie,

Logic is based upon realities. Attributes. It either is or it isn’t. Black and white. Thus if there are raindrops falling, it is logical to state it is raining. Logic is fact dependent.

Rhetoric, debate, and / or opinion is based upon impressions. Variables. Fuzzy conclusions dependent upon the observer. Rhetoric does not need rationality to prevail, only be more convincing to the judge. Thus if there are water drops falling, we could argue Angels are crying.

Your link does not suggest logic is anything about arguments. It is “valid inference and correct reasoning”. Try reading that again after your meds kick in.

Central Scrutinizer says:

Ever notice how the comments with the most anger and schoolyard name-calling nearly always come from the “right wing” writers? Just sayin’.
“If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do…”
Bertrand Russell -from his essay: ‘An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish’