If that's an example of your genuine effort to be truthfull, then I rest my case. I said Clutch said my report was not biased...and I said he disagreed with me on the issue. Try again.
Okay here goes: I can't go through all your posts. I have suggested a much quicker resolution. Have someone, anyone, dredge up several posts with a pro-American conclusion. I don't remember them. A. Yes, I am very concerned about right and wrong. I am ready, willing, and able to criticize the government when need be. No doubt I give them more slack though. I am a Texan-American. B. I, too, have a high standard as to what qualifies as a just war. My high standard is to liberate oppressed people and I am even more willing to spend US dollars and lives to do it when it furthers the best interests of the US. I have not supported every US war; I thought Viet Nam was a useless waste of American lives. C. I am a Republican who is not at all involved in party politics. I am a registered Republican who will vote for the occasional Democrat. I never vote straight ticket. I anticipate Powell replacing Cheney on the next ballot. D. Do you really not think that CNN, BBC and Canadian news are not drinking from the same trough. I don't know what others you watch. I usually watch MSNBC. I'm sorry but as others have pointed out to you before, higher education typicallyl has a very strong liberal bias. This makes me distrustful of your education. I am much more knee-jerk about responding to predictable posts than I am in responding to the news itself. I don't believe I've even entered into the Halliburton fray. I don't see myself as rushing in to defend the Administration ever. I usually find myself, yes, rushing in and defending them from the unfounded or insubstantial criticisms but I don't go around automatically defending their policies. How do you have consistent positions but are yourself above knee-jerk reactions that you think the rest of us are slaves to? Again, I didn't use treeman as an example of objectivity-- just the opposite. I was trying to point out how predictable your post was by stating that if treeman had posted it such consternation would not have arisen -- all 6 or 8 of us who are following this closely! I never ever said your facts were wrong. My criticism was of the nuance in your lines. You suggested that it was being covered-up or suppressed for God's sake. Is that a leap or what?!? That is where you departed from your beloved objectivity. Okay, now my self-reporting has overwhelmed yours... what next? I want to say that this exchange is not worth the paper it's printed on. Will someone please print this thread?
Here's the second time where clutlch says it is "okay" to post the topic. You are not lauded for your lack of bias. If I have missed it, point me to it please. I think I am dealing pretty fairly with the truth. Are you?
1) Thanks for responding to my bias question...I have to run to work, but will respond later. 2) I'm not sure if you are intentionally misunderstanding me, or if we are in agreement but arguing out of habit..I said that even Clutch, who doesn't take my side in this discussion agreed that the report I gave was good and non-biased. I never said that he says I am non-biased at all, and in fact chose Clutch for that very reason, as opposed to the many who have had no problem at all with my report, because Clutch is an example of someone who disagrees with me, but still didn't disagree with the report.
LOL! We have a misunderstanding.The topic I was refering to was the issue of by bias, not this discussion topic. Read giddy's response to same if you don't want to go back that far.Please respond re: my bias...Would appreciate it. Peace JAG
I shouldn't speak for clutch (but if I do, maybe it will bring him out again!), however I think he felt similarly about your report as I did... only he was more diplomatic about expressing it. I still can't find anything past him saying it was "okay" to post it. I can assure you that I am not intentionally misunderstanding you.
There's an important distinction between what I just did and what you like to do. Someone tried to label someone else as a moderate, which I disagree with based on the weight of their stated opinions. I did not just label someone, and then presume I know all of their opinions on every subject. That's what you've done repeatedly.
Cohen...aside from my consistent stance on this war, what else do you use to support your assertion that i am imoderate? Also..I encourage you to read my thread re: the war. Do you thin adopting a consistent stance on one issue is itself evidence of an overall bias?
