With all due respect RED1998SVT, your post is a good example of the errors in reasoning I described in my previous post ... for example:

Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
JaTo and Mysti-ken would have us believe that the entire election is just a partisan screaming match.


Your words not mine; your characterization, not mine. It is an example of "loaded language" intended to impute a value that was not in the original assertion.

Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
JaTo and Mysti-ken are trying to convince us that the election is "devoid" of substance and it's "damn near impossible" to find out the truth on the issues.


Who are you quoting here? It's not me. What's more, my reference to "devoid" modified "substantiated" - completely different than "substance."

Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
And it does not make the election any less important.


Agreed - but in making this statement you are implying that I asserted originally that the election was in fact less important because of the nature of the campaigns. What line of reasoning did you use to deduce that?

Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
Discussions like this one are a way to learn about the issues. There are reliable sources of information, many of which have been referenced here.


I disagree with your assessment, and your other statements suggest you don't really think so either. IMO the truly impartial and objective sources are for the most part NOT referenced here. On the other hand, where I state that my view is opinion, you state your view as fact. Please substantiate.

Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
Of course the party campaigns themselves are rife with overstatement, even outright falsehoods. Of course it's difficult to find unbiased reports. That is the nature of presidential elections.


You seem to characterize this state of affairs as being normal, or to be expected, or to be tolerated. Do you contend that this is a good way to conduct an election, or are you in fact yourself being "defeatist" by suggesting that "there's no way to change it, so don't bother commenting on it." And yes, that is a false attribution, I know you didn't actually use the words I put in quotations.

Originally posted by RED1998SVT:
Unfortunately, this new diversion by JaTo and Mysti-ken now steers the conversation away from the pressing issues and into a philosphical sob about partisan campaigning.


I am sorry you feel that the veracity of claims made by the candidates in this election is an attempt to divert attention from the "pressing issues." IMO this is at the heart of the matter. How do you reconcile your two positions - that "party campaigns themselves are rife with overstatement, even outright falsehoods" and yet we should all concentrate on "the real issues" which apparently don't include honesty, accuracy and honor? IMO your positions are inconsistent.

What's more, your characterization of my comments as a "philosophical sob" lacks reasoning and is IMO intended to cloud the issue, not add value to the debate.

My assertion is that there are very real, very important and very practical considerations arising out of the way the campaigns in this election are being conducted. IMO the level of manipulation is unprecedented and as a result the U.S. voter is the worst for it.

The practical applications to this thread are 1) it would be helpful if debaters used other than clearly partisan sources to substantiate claims and support opinions, and also to quote the sources; 2) it would be helpful and considerate if posters did not use personal attacks on the intelligence or motives of others as a means to counter their assertions; and 3) wouldn't it be excellent if the most truly informed voters on Nov 2 were CEG'ers