Originally posted by Mysti-ken: It's unfortunate that this election (and U.S. politics in general IMO) is reduced to nothing more than a popularity contest featuring strident and sensational partisan rhetoric from both sides; rhetoric that is almost totally devoid of any substantiated, reasoned argument (classical definition).
On both sides the so-called "facts" and conclusions are so rife with fallacy (untruths, incomplete accounts, errors in reasoning) as to be useless to anybody interested in an objective discussion about them.
If you believe (as I do) that in order for a democracy to flourish you must have a populace skilled in the classical form of "argument" and supported by an objective, unfettered and unaligned media skilled at discerning and reporting unbiased fact, then you must be terribly frustrated - because it seems clear to me that neither exist.
I would FULLY agree with this, as the swill and obfucation that has come from the bulk of the mass media here in the US is so one-sided that it's damn-near impossible to get an honest story that objectively looks at both sides and gives the population a chance to reflect over each side of the story.
It's also why I plow foreign papers and journals written for a different audience than the typical US public. I sincerely try to have a smattering of differing viewpoints before even trying to formulate my own...
...though that smattering doesn't consist of NBC, CBS or CNN very often.
I've even made it a habit to check out the English Al-Jazeera site every so often. How many here can say that?
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:...And therefore, IMO, quoting or referencing partisan journalists as a means to support or legitamize your argument should carry no weight.
Fair enough, though I was running short on time to dig deeper and find more reviews on the topic. He's what one supposed impartial political watchdog had to say about Cheney and Halliburton:
Which is PRECISELY the same thing that is being said in the "partisan" article I referened above. It's also pretty much the same information that the National Review has reported on in the past. I also recall the GAO talking to previous concerns of impropriety on Halliburton's part and referenced Cheney, which more or less exonerated him from any suspicion.
To sum up:
If I have distorted any commonly known or reported fact that you are aware of, by ALL means point it out to me. I felt I've been MORE than fair by agreeing that this administration hasn't done as good a job as it could have done in some areas, and that particular individuals in it should be given the boot due to a lack of foresight (Rumsfeld for starters). I felt as if I've tried to bring forth the cause and effect of the decisions that were made and why they were made (in light of the information that I've poured through since the Bush, Sr. days).
Conversely, all I hear and see from the other side of this argument is unsubstantiated and ill-informed speculation, falsehoods, oversimplification to the point of absurdity and a profound lack of understanding of US foreign policy over the past 50 years, even at a base level. It's the typical partisan "Bush is wrong and he LIED! Now what was the question?" attitude that is so aggrivating due to it's naievity. I expect it of 3rd graders; not folks that are supposed to have sound intellectual capacity and owe it to themselves to be more informed about the goings-on in the world that they claim to support or fight against.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
