Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
So you could be calling the liberals that appear on the IBD editorial pages completely ignorant or we can say that your view of IBD is based some misconceptions. For the record I generally don't post things here that don't support my views. I am and have been guilty of "cherry picking" and I admit it. But, in my view that is the nature of debate, and I think participants in debate (even passive participants) need to do their own homework. You know, like Reagan said: "trust but verify".
|
I think that it's safe to say that my impression of IBD might be based on misconceptions, but in all fairness to me, those misconceptions were based almost entirely on the things you posted from IBD. Also, any publication that bases an editorial on the premise that Stephen Hawking wouldn't be alive had he been subject to the British healthcare system without actually verifying that he hadn't been subject to the British healthcare system has lost all credibility. So regardless of whether they have editorialists who aren't hacks, be they liberal or conservative, I'm not going to assume that the facts and conclusions set forth in their editorials are worthy of serious consideration.
In other words, as far as I'm concerned, most editorials, be they IBD or no, are equivalent to long farty noises in terms of usefulness.