Liberal Forum

Termin8tor » 29 Mar 2017 5:00 pm » wrote:
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.

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.

Facts are not facts until BOTH parties agree.

One party cannot keep a good face if they ignore facts from a neutral or even friendly media source - they will discredit their own argument if they call **** on such sources, and lose all credibility. But no one has to blindly trust ANY source, simply because you do. If it is a source with an agenda, no one except you will expect them to. Essentially, a link to an agenda source is not much of a link at all - unless the person you are arguing with is in agreement with that media - quoting MSNBC in an argument with a liberal, for example.

If something is worth doing, it is worth doing right. If you cannot quickly find a neutral source to corroborate "facts" the WSJ is feeding you, then they are taking you for a ride. They got those "facts" SOMEWHERE, didn't they? Google looks just about everywhere except their *** - so if google can't find 'em, THAT'S where they got 'em.