29 Mar 2017 5:00 pm
Sorry, I'm not being paid to take the time to go through all that, especially when no matter what I cite, most on the other side will brush it off anyway.Cannonpointer » 29 Mar 2017 4:48 pm » wrote: 1. You could just drop it - not use that evidence, or
2. Plow ahead and damn the torpedoes, or
3. Start a NEW thread about the MSM coverup.
The problem with you is that you will commonly use an agenda source when legitimate sources SHOULD be available - for example, WSJ OpEds. Assuming the WSJ does not invent it's "facts," a quick easy google search should take you to a neutral source for that information. This habit would signal your respect for the fact that the rest of the forum does not share your woo woo for the WSJ editorial board. It's why I routinely source through the MSM when arguing with libs, and never when arguing with cons - I out of respect for bathroomers.
And who defines "neutral?" For decades, the liberal-left has insulted and rejected excellent sources like Robert Conquest. Do I have to wait 3 decades until he's proven to be correct beyond all doubt?
Regarding op-eds, facts are facts are facts are facts, but if someone disputes them, then a debate ensues.
Hey, and another complaint. We haven't been nearly as rude to each other as we should be, so please assume the usual ugly personal insults I make about you.
