LowerCaseRepublican Posted September 7, 2004 Author Share Posted September 7, 2004 you can find anything on the internet even if it has no truth to it at all so if i where to back things up like you do(unproven sorces) it would go againts everything i disagree with in your posting methods. Actually the information I post comes from a wide variety of well respected groups like the Cato Institute, experts in policy fields and other respected academics and journalists that have proven themselves conclusively with their evidence. Reading the PoV from a respected source, taking the evidence they cite to make the claim and then finding out it's conclusive is really all it takes to show that they have facts. That's where my assertions come from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan420 Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 Actually the information I post comes from a wide variety of well respected groups like the Cato Institute, experts in policy fields and other respected academics and journalists that have proven themselves conclusively with their evidence. Reading the PoV from a respected source, taking the evidence they cite to make the claim and then finding out it's conclusive is really all it takes to show that they have facts. That's where my assertions come from. what you call credable, i laugh at so.... we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. just for the record just because you back something up with more writting doesnt make it anymore truthful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted September 7, 2004 Author Share Posted September 7, 2004 what you call credable, i laugh at so.... we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. just for the record just because you back something up with more writting doesnt make it anymore truthful. More citations doesn't always mean more credible, but when you back it up with testimonials from people involved, ownership reports, history and other documentation then proof is pretty damn clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan420 Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 More citations doesn't always mean more credible, but when you back it up with testimonials from people involved, ownership reports, history and other documentation then proof is pretty damn clear. unless those people only see one side to the story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted September 7, 2004 Author Share Posted September 7, 2004 unless those people only see one side to the story. It seems you're seeing one side of the story (i.e. that the Iraq war was justified etc.) and have no real basis for the position. Most people like Richard Clarke, William Blum and others have seen both sides sitting on policy boards for the Pentagon and in Presidential administrations and have found it hard to swallow the pill the administration (Bush and LBJ/Nixon respectively for Clarke and Blum) was feeding the public. Just because they, or anybody, has an opinion on a topic does not mean that they haven't seen all sides of the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan420 Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 It seems you're seeing one side of the story (i.e. that the Iraq war was justified etc.) and have no real basis for the position. Most people like Richard Clarke, William Blum and others have seen both sides sitting on policy boards for the Pentagon and in Presidential administrations and have found it hard to swallow the pill the administration (Bush and LBJ/Nixon respectively for Clarke and Blum) was feeding the public. Just because they, or anybody, has an opinion on a topic does not mean that they haven't seen all sides of the issue. i do and have gone over it past posts with you but basicly i dont want to debate the same thing over and over again with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan420 Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 Interesting... so where do you get your information from if you don't trust the media..? You're kinda making a fool of yourself here. If you don't want to give a listen to what he has to say, then don't. But don't call it bulls*** because it's not what the source you choose to believe says... That's hypocritical. if you dont read all my posts, and i have read some of his sources, and see how im trying to get him to read more then just the far LEFT side of the news group, because he ignores every thread that has valid points in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted September 7, 2004 Author Share Posted September 7, 2004 The Cato Institute is a far right Libertarian think tank which is one of many sources that I read...including the far right Libertarian page www.antiwar.com So calling them far left is an insult to their ideology and just makes you look more inaccurate How do I ignore threads with valid points in them? And how exactly are my sources "far left"? More examples with no proof...real convincing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 Can't you guys ever argue anything without trying to tie it back to Iraq? This was about some publicity-whore crashing a convention that they weren't invited to, and getting thrown out, not whether you think Bush lied about WMD or if the Cato Institute is a credible source of info. The idiot getting kicked had nothing to do with WMD's, and everything to do with her looking for trouble, and getting it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.