Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zodiak
Arguing "what if's" is not valid in this case. The fact was, no national security was compromised as far as we know in the public domain. Any speculation beyond that is just that...speculation.
|
You said "national security was not compromised," and I think engaging in such conduct IS compromising security.
Quote:
|
Then you would have read how the National Review is a biased source that misquotes and misrepresents articles, as I showed with a cursory analysis of one point in the last National Review Article. Please stick with mainstream articles if you want to engage the left in debate with honesty and good faith.
|
Sorry, I'll not be lectured to about honesty and good faith by anyone. I quoted my source, which is all that is required in such discussions. If you read it and disagreed with the conclusion drawn from those facts (or if the facts themselves are wrong), so be it. But don't think for a minute that you get a better view of the news from the so-called mainstream press; that's the group that tries to hide their biases. Give me a National Review or a Nation article any day--I prefer knowing where the writer is coming from right up front.
What you're saying, in essence, is if the source doesn't fit in your definition of fair and equitible, then it's not. That's not going to fly anywhere, especially here. You may think CNN or the NYT meets that definition, but neither would by any objective standard. If it's from Fox News or National Review, then it's not fair for discussing with the left? I guess confusing them with the facts or a different view on the news isn't equitable.