Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
This is intellectually lazy and weak. If you are disputing that the bias or leanings or undercurrent of an author or source are material to a proper analysis of a writing, say so, so we can all laugh out loud. If you are saying that I have wrongly attributed such bias to specific authors or sources, say that too, and we can hash that out. But, frankly, when I constantly see the hard-core liberal pundits being cited here as neutral sources of raw data, my reponse is going to be a constant harping on why one should probably not cosider their opinions and musings to be raw data. If I do it too often for you, consider maybe that that is a reflection on how often people here cite from crap.
|
I am intellectually lazy, but I'm not weak.
I do not dispute any of the two points that you make in the second and third sentences above.
I was merely poking fun at what I perceive to be the reaction offered by you and many other R's on the Board that a negative characterization of the Administration's pre-War conduct regarding Iraq and regarding its communication with the American public on the same is not only inaccurate, but is necessarily coming from a partisan point-of-view and must therefore be discounted, because only a partisan source could possibly believe that such criticism of the Administration is warranted.
I did that poking by alluding to another (separate) refrain that is commonly heard here on the Board and thus getting a twofer. So, I can understand the confusion.
Boy, subtlety doesn't work around here.
S_A_M
