Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

keopeli

(3,525 posts)
15. I personally do not trust the source at all. In fact, because RCP is the source, I question the
Fri Dec 2, 2022, 10:16 PM
Dec 2022

the legitimacy and accuracy of what are, as you say, provable facts, because I have known RCP to manipulate facts in an attempt to promote falsehoods. My whole point is that choosing a source is an important part of presenting a question or hypothesis for this very reason. I assume you are very aware of the egregious behavior that has emanated from RCP in recent years and either it doesn't bother you or you simply couldn't locate a second source. However, because it is possible that you are unaware of the callous disregard for facts and truth that this publisher exhibits regularly, I chose to write to you and make sure you ARE aware. If you choose to back up your promoted discussion with RCP as your source fully aware of what RCP is and does, then you are doing it fully aware of the high likelihood that many DUers (like myself) would likely react to the source issue rather than to address the legitimate question you raised.
In other words, I'm just trying to be helpful, certainly not disrespectful. I hope you understand that.
Thanks for bringing the missed deadline to my (our) attention. That's an essential bit of news that might otherwise have gone unnoticed.
Blessings again!

Not sure why you'd assume anything coming from 'Real Clear Policy' is factually accurate in any way? Hugh_Lebowski Dec 2022 #1
Because it is a fact that 1) the appeals court ruled against the proposed rule and 2) the Biden kelly1mm Dec 2022 #3
IMO, you are underestimating the manipulative and mendacious propaganda from this extreme source. keopeli Dec 2022 #13
Just to make sure you are confirming that the facts in the article (that the appeals court kelly1mm Dec 2022 #14
I personally do not trust the source at all. In fact, because RCP is the source, I question the keopeli Dec 2022 #15
Ok then - even though the facts as presented in the article are not really in dispute I kelly1mm Dec 2022 #18
The source you posted is highly offensive. It borders on breaking the "RW talking points" rule. NullTuples Dec 2022 #21
2 questions 1) did the Appeals court rule against the proposed rule? 2) Did the Biden administration kelly1mm Dec 2022 #23
I don't like it EndlessWire Dec 2022 #2
I don't like it either but. . . . h2ebits Dec 2022 #11
+1 area51 Dec 2022 #12
Universal healthcare would not stop individual medical practitioners from denying care in accordance kelly1mm Dec 2022 #20
Here in California, all non-community hospitals north of Sacramento metro are conservative Christian NullTuples Dec 2022 #22
Of course this decision moniss Dec 2022 #4
Cause the illegitimate six would codify it JT45242 Dec 2022 #5
Not appealing it already makes it precedent as the appeals court ruling stands. The USSC kelly1mm Dec 2022 #6
If I remember a-right, Igel Dec 2022 #7
The injunction barring the administration from the proposed rule was a nationwide injunction kelly1mm Dec 2022 #8
Weird, how right wing judges keep applying anti-trans injunctions nationwide. NullTuples Dec 2022 #24
I think it is strange that in facing nationwide injunctions the Biden administration choses not kelly1mm Dec 2022 #26
It seemed reasonable to me that the Biden Administration assumed the "freedom of religion" Court Martin68 Dec 2022 #9
We do have a constitutional right to freedom of religion/free exercise of religion so there kelly1mm Dec 2022 #10
Religion is essentially an opinion, not fact. NullTuples Dec 2022 #25
All this is true but the USSC seems to be reestablishing those rules based on its interpretation kelly1mm Dec 2022 #28
But what about the religious liberty of the patient-customers? NullTuples Dec 2022 #29
The USSC seems unconcerned with their wishes as they are not 'active' participants in the kelly1mm Dec 2022 #31
I would not be willing to wager that even an unbiased SCOTUS would rule otherwise cstanleytech Dec 2022 #16
The problem with that view is based on where religious beliefs collide with science and medical Martin68 Dec 2022 #17
The problem with your view is that it may be true that scientific and medical kelly1mm Dec 2022 #19
Religious beliefs are a personal opinion. Should we base all law on that relative baseline? NullTuples Dec 2022 #27
So long as we have a 1st Amendment right to free exercise of religion there will be kelly1mm Dec 2022 #30
After a review by forum hosts....LOCKING Omaha Steve Dec 2022 #32
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Biden Admin Waives Suprem...»Reply #15