Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman
Why wouldn't you take the independent source of information over one that has much to gain/lose which is thereby inherently biased towards their own agenda?
I really don't get that.
ETA - I am not saying that the information doesn't need to be backed up at all. All I am saying that I would prefer an independent source of information.
Why don't you?
|
You are twisting the argument again.
Look back at the first example.
You described the source documents I provided as being biased and/or false and yet, you would not or could not provide evidence of such bias...but rather imposed the burden of evidence on me to prove it wasnt biased.
If you make the charge that a source is biased...PROVE IT!
I am all for holding the government accountable...with FACTS, not rumors, innuendos and/or unsubstantiated allegations.
That is a typical "School of Limbaugh" tactic - claim "bias/false/lies" but cannot or will not prove it or substantiate the charge.
And, yes...still un*fucking*believable...no matter how you attempt to twist it.