 Quote: |
Originally Posted by Jefferson What do you folks NOT understand about what I've been saying all along in this thread?
It is this: You CANNOT take as credible and objective a website like Dubyaspeak.com. You CANNOT build an argument on that, any more than you can build an argument on what you find on SwiftBoatVeterans.com.
Does that makes sense? | No. It doesn't.
"credible"? You cannot judge "credible" just based on partisanship. You just cannot do that and pretend that it's a sensible thing to do.
If such a standard were rationale, virtually NOTHING could be claimed as "credible".
"Objective"? Now something NEW is being added to the debate. I haven't read all the responses, but I don't recall anybody claiming that "dubyaspeak" was "objective". It's obviously not objective, but that doesn't make it "not credible".
The thing you don't seem to get is that web-sites like this can post RELIABLE INFORMATION. One of the web-sites previously posted WAS QUOTING AN AP STORY, but I'm guessing you didn't even notice that as you rushed to condemn the web-site... |