Validating Liberal Political Comments a Real Choir
Let’s face it in the furious sound of the politic which in the end really does signify nothing; we so often see debaters of either side spout endless facts and figures.
Often there is no basis for such data and if there is, the data is usually taken out of context and/or the report, article or research it was taken from in the first place leaves a lot to be desired.
Recently I was invited to moderate a particular side of a National Political Online Debate and was assured that the other sides views would be moderated and monitored; “Hello Lance, I'll guarantee you that the monitors that I choose will have to validate all posts before they are posted on the web site.
” It is good to see that folks out there really do wish to keep a level playing field and here about the issues and this is a good thing.
Yet on further review I have seen the kinds of validation and reports that Democrats use to justify their points.
Reports from "K-street" Law firms and the academia manufactured reports.
Then we see further data sets taken out of context.
Additionally they continually report NYT articles? As if a reporter who has an axe to grind against his belief system is actually in the "Know" and thus it does not matter if you monitor the comments if the parties are using false and misrepresentative reports? It is like doing an audit on a company using only the information they feel like giving you? Not to mention the Democratic Leadership has said they will fund 80 million in Think Tanks using Soros's money? Sounds to me that any reports used are going to be questionable? Here are two examples of the kinds of tactics, tricks and scams they use when promoting the liberal agenda: [http://worldthinktank.
net/wttbbs/index.
php?s=f393a133a7ec84ee955ad2c1fd465b84&showtopic=200] [http://worldthinktank.
net/wttbbs/index.
php?s=f393a133a7ec84ee955ad2c1fd465b84&showtopic=188] You see I have no problem debating with facts, but innuendoes, half-truths and manipulated data is another thing.
Surely a free man of his faculties can debate on concept and common sense, but the incessant false data being thrown into the political arena can get a little unnerving at times.
So we might all wish to think on this in 2006.
Often there is no basis for such data and if there is, the data is usually taken out of context and/or the report, article or research it was taken from in the first place leaves a lot to be desired.
Recently I was invited to moderate a particular side of a National Political Online Debate and was assured that the other sides views would be moderated and monitored; “Hello Lance, I'll guarantee you that the monitors that I choose will have to validate all posts before they are posted on the web site.
” It is good to see that folks out there really do wish to keep a level playing field and here about the issues and this is a good thing.
Yet on further review I have seen the kinds of validation and reports that Democrats use to justify their points.
Reports from "K-street" Law firms and the academia manufactured reports.
Then we see further data sets taken out of context.
Additionally they continually report NYT articles? As if a reporter who has an axe to grind against his belief system is actually in the "Know" and thus it does not matter if you monitor the comments if the parties are using false and misrepresentative reports? It is like doing an audit on a company using only the information they feel like giving you? Not to mention the Democratic Leadership has said they will fund 80 million in Think Tanks using Soros's money? Sounds to me that any reports used are going to be questionable? Here are two examples of the kinds of tactics, tricks and scams they use when promoting the liberal agenda: [http://worldthinktank.
net/wttbbs/index.
php?s=f393a133a7ec84ee955ad2c1fd465b84&showtopic=200] [http://worldthinktank.
net/wttbbs/index.
php?s=f393a133a7ec84ee955ad2c1fd465b84&showtopic=188] You see I have no problem debating with facts, but innuendoes, half-truths and manipulated data is another thing.
Surely a free man of his faculties can debate on concept and common sense, but the incessant false data being thrown into the political arena can get a little unnerving at times.
So we might all wish to think on this in 2006.
