Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 29 Mar 2017 5:23 pm » wrote: Facts are not facts until BOTH parties agree.

As I explicitly said.

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.

I don't expect anyone to automatically accept facts in an opinion piece, but they certainly should have the integrity to consider them and accept them, unless a specific reason is given to believe they are wrong. Even skepticism is fine, but flat out rejection is intellectually dishonest.

I don't recall you ever accepting the facts in my opinion sources, and yes, they are sources.

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.

I cannot recall a single time the WSJ ever "took me for a ride." I can only once or twice recall an egregious mistake in any of my sources. That's the point; I have read my sources for decades, so I've had that long to reality-check them for accuracy and generally sound judgment.

I am not an academic who needs to do original research, and it sure ain't worth my time to do so here.

And as I've noted before, your judgment in how to analyze facts on topics like Economics is appalling, so even if I took the time to do original analysis, you'd just reject it anyway.