Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
Some of us here transparently post the sources that shape our opinions, and some of us apparently prefer to visit sites like the most recent one that politicophile posted; www.gop.com. |
Yes, but what does this mean exactly? How can you pretend to be accessing 'transparent' material from sites that are committed to the Left point of view? Of course you are going to get the material you want from sites that resonate with your beliefs. How can you honestly invalidate gop.com while at the same time validate tnr.com?
While I have respect for the amount of time you put into your posts, whenever I respond I get deluged with guerilla op-eds. And not only that (and one or more mods here can attest to this) but you frequently omit key parts of articles that don't support your line.
Quote:
|
The scenario on this forum plays out over and over, I lay out my opinion, complete with a majority of references from main stream sources, you counter with a contradictory opinion, and if it includes references, they are more often than not from obscure or biased sources. You dismiss most or all of my documentation, or you ignore it completely.
|
99% of the sources everyone provides here are op-eds, and these days that means they are strongly partisan. Truthout.org, The New Republic, dailychaos.com are nothing more than mouthpieces for the Left - these organizations have no interest in espousing moderate, rational views. I have found very few sites that take a reasonable, moderate viewpoint, yet they do exist. In the case of this particular thread, one simply needed to cite the official Senate voting records to answer politicophile's question, not Liberal op-eds of those voting records.
Quote:
|
You posture in a similar way to politicophile, acting as if your opinion or point is obviously true or reliable, without showing the rest of us what influenced your thinking.
|
So evertime someone posts an opinion or comment, they have to back it up with a source, which inevitably gets knocked down anyway?
Quote:
|
Aside from the effort that you put into your "Good things about Iraq" thread, you have not demonsrated a willingness to make your claim, back it up with reports from MSM or other non-partisan sources, and defend your points and references and rebut those posted by others.
|
Take the last week or so. I have made multiple posts regarding the Democratic cooperation for the Iraq War. What do *I* get for my effort? Snark, patronizing remarks, or sarcasm.
Here, for example. I get tired of this shit real fast.
Quote:
That describes the exchanges that are supposed to take place at this forum.
politicophile has not shown a willingness to participate as I've described, and now he announces that he will step back for a while.
|
Why should he 'participate as you've described'? He started the thread, he asked a legitimate question, and you (and others) never directly answered his question. Instead, you cite multiple, dubious sources that you think discredits his question to begin with, which you use as justification to avoid the question.
Quote:
|
When you start a thread or make a point here, you should be prepared to back up your point with comments other than talking points, prejudices, or feelings. Exchanges need to progress similarly to what happens in a courtroom, a process that attempts findings of fact. That process requires research, and it is not usually helpful to look on rnc.com or dnc.com .
|
Please...your links are some of the most partisan out there. 2-way street. If we had a judge here declaring guerilla op-eds as inadmissable, the courtroom analogy might work. I truly believe at this point that people are here mostly just to vent their frustrations, not seek the truth.
Quote:
|
Your "gueriilla op-ed" critical comment fails to mention the vast amount of news reports and reliable, referenced documentation that was posted for politicophile and others who agreed with him, to consider and respond to, but unfortunately, that did not happen. What took place here, as far as a fact finding proocess, was very one sided, as most other threads are. If that is the core reason motivating your comments, why not make the effort to challenge the documented points that others make with points of similar strength and transparency?
|
I'll cut and paste to repeat: Take the last week or so. I have made multiple posts regarding the Democratic cooperation for the Iraq War. What do *I* get for my effort? Snark, patronizing remarks, or sarcasm. Here, for example. I get tired of this shit real fast.
Quote:
|
The argument that 'we will till find Iraqi WMD" finally went away because it was challenged with a set of unimpeachable points of fact, everytime it was raised. All future weak, tentative, and unsupported arguments will meet the same fate on these threads, no matter how obviously valid they may appear to be to you.
|
As long as you maintain that guerilla op-eds constitute "unimpeachable points of fact", interesting and intelligent dialogue here will remain the exception to the rule.