Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahasattva
Hello Mr. Scribbler,
Personally I'd rather judge things with my own eyes. Too often when someone has said, "Oh that's so fill-in-the-blank." or "They are fill-in-the-blank." -- It isn't so and they aren't.
|
I agree and applaud you for your position. My reaction was to the source you used as proof of your argument. Either a right or a left web publication is to be suspected of having an agenda
And it WAS an opinion-piece, which makes it unreliable as a source no matter WHAT side they lean towards. Since Obama is a little to smart to come out and SAY he's trying to start a race war, ANY source you choose is speculative at best. And speculation is not sufficient proof.
That was the reason I challenged your sources. Not the information itself.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trashing the website. I was even a little (pleasantly) surprised when I read the article on Bush and the Republicans. It showed a decided lack of "right-wingery".
Quote:
 Hey, now she's a hot babe and often on the mark. Like Ann Coulter much of her rhetoric is specifically designed to get a raise out of the opposition. Then again who out there do I agree with on all things? 
|
That's a highly subjective perspective. IMO, Malkin is anything BUT a "hot babe" and both her and Coulter make careers of exploiting rumors and misinformation. Malkin, for instance is only safe when her views are unchallenged.
And Ann Coulter is an emaciated skank, which is MY opinion.
Quote:
|
It depends on the article, the subject matter, and the writer. The New York Times does not have a good track record over the past few years. Still, it is one of the better written papers.
|
Point taken, and I agree. The NYT, specifically, has had a few black eyes in the last decade or so. But, having said that their track record is still pretty good.