Author Topic: Carefully reasoned analysis of the red states  (Read 6878 times)

Offline Jim_Ewing

  • NEClimbs Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 369
Re: Carefully reasoned analysis of the red states
« Reply #60 on: December 17, 2004, 11:10:05 am »
Here's a challenge to Mountain Man and perhaps Cowboy too.

Here,s the challenge: Support your arguments with facts from independent sources.  This does not include Coulter, Limbaugh, or anyone from Fox News(?) or other so called  media .  Show me something from independent political analysts, historians, statisticians, or whomever you can.  The catch is that they must be verifiably independent or at least show some semblance of being nonbiased.

You keep beating the drum of right wing rhetoric, echoing the gross generalizations, misinformation, and inflammatory name-calling, but have yet to produce a single, verifiable, independent, carefully researched, fact.  Even the person that put up the page had links to the sources of his (or her) points.

I,m all for looking at things with an open mind.  That,s part of the definition of what it means to be a liberal.  Unfortunately that,s not the case with conservative doctrine. (yes, a gross generalization, allow me this one)

As for all the  quit whining, you lost crap I keep hearing from conservatives; where would we be had the revolutionaries of 1776 stopped whining and bowed down?  I suspect that even conservatives realize the only way to affect change is to speak your mind and take action.  Wow, I never thought I would put  conservative and  change in the same sentence.

Offline Broken_Spectre

  • NEClimbs Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
  • climbing-YAY!
Re: Carefully reasoned analysis of the red states
« Reply #61 on: December 20, 2004, 07:11:53 am »
Mountain Man,
I already  mentioned how some of the historians Coulter used for her sources stated that she took there work completely out of context.  They refused to support the claims that she made.  I've read some of Ann Coulter's work because I am willing to read the viewpoints of people that I disagree with.  I went and looked at her "sources" and discovered that much of the assertions she makes are not based upon reality.  She uses statements from articles that have no bearing on the point she is trying to make other then containing a series of unrelated sentances that she could cobble together to make a claim.  The fact that fox uses her, and others of her ilk, under the auspices of journalistic integrity forces me to doubt anything that fox says as fact. Sorry, MtnMan, Coulter is simply a manipulative polemecist for right wing interests. Equate Coulter with Michael Moore, fine, but there is one significant difference.  MM is not on a major new outlet claiming to be an objective journalist.

Secondly, I'm not buying the argument that Bush or any of his supporters are "conservatives".  Conservatism of the old school variety includes conserving resources for future generations, minimizing intrusion into individual rights,  and avoiding entangling affairs with foreign nations none of which bush and his supporters aspire to.  True conservatives agree with liberals as to where the country should be headed, they simply disagree on how to implement it.