Does Anyone feel like Bailing

Originally Posted by classicman

I understand what you are saying. No blanket assertions. How about some independent corroboration though?
Taking the defendant's statements and ignoring the witnesses is kinda how I'm looking at it. I don't trust gov't enough for that.

If you insist on a legal analogy, how about "innocent until proven guilty" as opposed to "guilty until corroborated independently"

The burden of proof should be on the one making the accusation of bias....not the other way around.

[classicman]

Yeh ok. Lets just miss the point entirely - again.
I'm not comfortable believing only the one with the most to gain/lose. To me, an independent source is preferable.

Originally Posted by classicman

Yeh ok. Lets just miss the point entirely - again.
I'm not comfortable believing only the one with the most to gain/lose. To me, an independent source is preferable.

Nope...I got it.

You just confirmed the point that tw makes repeatedly.

Conservatives take the position that they are in the right to make accusations but dont have to back those accusations up with facts. Its the Limbaugh tactic.

Un*fucking*believable.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I understand completely.

You live in a black and white world when it comes to anything this administration does.

Either it has to be 100% perfect or it is a failure.

Try applying that same standard to your own lives....which might explain why you (Merc) are so bitter and angry.

For example? Please describe what you understand about my life and what makes me bitter and angry?

[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?

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.

[TheMercenary]

Anything published by the Administration and this Congress is biased. It is as true now as it was before. Maybe that is why Bayh is quitting.

[classicman]

Perhaps I was unclear - If so, sorry. I'm not trying to twist anything. I'm trying to get information from independent sources, sources other than the Gov't. If you get what I'm saying now, please respond to that. If not. . .dunno.

And for the record, again, I don't watch/see/hear/read....Limbaugh so I'll defer to you & tw who seem to know much more about him & whatever his opinions are.

Originally Posted by classicman

Perhaps I was unclear - If so, sorry. I'm not trying to twist anything. I'm trying to get information from independent sources, sources other than the Gov't. If you get what I'm saying now, please respond to that. If not. . .dunno.

Nope...I dont "get it".

You are making unfounded or undocumented allegations against any government source document and, by extension, not only discrediting the source w/o proof, but the person posting as well.

Its cheap and disengenuous.

As I said...I am all for holding the government accountable...with FACTS, not rumors, innuendos and/or unsubstantiated allegations.

And I give up trying to "get it".

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

You are making unfounded or undocumented allegations against any government source document and, by extension, not only discrediting the source w/o proof, but the person posting as well.

Its cheap and disengenuous.

And I give up trying to "get it".

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

Nope...I dont "get it".

And I give up trying to "get it".

Gotcha. Trying to use INDEPENDENT SOURCES is a bad thing. One must accept the Gov't for what they say. Thats your plan - ok.
Now I understand where we differ.

You want to use them as your only source of information and I want other corroborating information from independent sources.

Originally Posted by classicman

Gotcha. Trying to use INDEPENDENT SOURCES is a bad thing. One must accept the Gov't for what they say. Thats your plan - ok.
Now I understand where we differ.

You want to use them as your only source of information and I want other corroborating information from independent sources.

Damn, dude. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

That is not what I said at all.

Please read my post objectively.

I am all for holding the government accountable...with FACTS, not rumors, innuendos and/or unsubstantiated allegations.

BUT...if you are making unfounded or undocumented allegations against any government source document...PROVE iT!

Now it is totaly un*fucking" believeable.

[classicman]

Sorry - I was simply following your lead.

All I am saying is that I want unbiased, independent information from someone other than the Gov't. What the hell is wrong with that?

I give up.

You have worn me out on this one.

[classicman]

take two aspirin and we'll start again in the morning.