| Author |
 Topic |
|
|
liberalcow
2 Posts |
 Posted - 10/05/2004 : 23:41:36
|
You should be proud that you've successfully created a so-called "non-biased" website with 86% of your sources and links from Conservative news sources. Good job! Look at this work of art: http://www.conservativetruth.org/links.shtml
On that list of conservative sites, note such sites as:
WorldNetDaily
National Review
Right Wing News (never would have guessed this one was conservative)
...which are basically the only sites you sourced. BIASED!
As for the Boston Globe's Michael Kranish (and the Boston Globe, itself), he has a stick up his butt about Kerry (see his published works). Most of that article is just verbatim what is written in that Biography of John Kerry by People Who Know Him Best book (yes, I read through it). Don't expect to see too much niceties from him about Kerry. Ever. Biased!
As for the Crimson article by Samuel Z. Goldhaber from 1970...This article didn't have a conservative bias, really, so I appreciate it. It also showed a bit of Kerry's character, which I also appreciate. Of course, it shows the character of a 26-year-old Kerry and not necessarily the character of a 60-year-old Kerry, so one must be careful. I have to comment on it:
Agreed. Kerry attempted to avoid the draft, but note that he did NOT run off to Canada or take a nice vacation on an island somewhere for four years. Remember also that Kerry was in his twenties at this time, still just a kid. He was afraid of the war, as anyone should be. Taken by itself, one cannot say that cowardice as a kid defines the man. "He shouldn't brag about his war record, then," you say, but regardless of whether he wanted to be there or not, he WAS there, and thus he HAS the right to say so. Whether his injuries were minor or not, the truth is that he was in danger of losing his life in a war that he did not believe in. What this means is that he WILL think twice before shoving our soldiers into a war that is unneccessary, and he WILL do everything he can to get them home alive. I do not think that the issue of whether Kerry is more patriotic or more of a hero because he served his country more than Bush did is an issue at all. I do not care that both men were afraid to die, and that both did everything they could to avoid it. I care that one man will bring us back from a war that even the troops have begun to lose faith in instead of dragging us into yet another war with Iran.
So that's a total of seven sources (discounting the Telegraph article, which only cited the Crimson article...BAD SOURCE), and only one of them was notably non-biased. That means that your website is only 14% non-biased. I'm disappointed, you guys. You told me that you found good, non-biased sources. You told me that your website is non-biased, yet that is IMPOSSIBLE when you have ONE source from a non-biased publication/editor. I honestly hope you have more to add than this, or you're going to have to change your "about us" statement. Basically, you have just regurgitated what could be construed as conservative propaganda; you have possibly MISconstrued actual facts, and have failed to present non-biased (read: credible) evidence that what you said is truth.
I'm sick and tired of people that don't even know Kerry presuming to believe that everything they hear or don't hear about him is true. If you want to make a truly non-biased website, then don't use sources at all. Go out there and do your own research about him. Hey, TALK TO THE MAN! Talk to the actual veterans that SERVED WITH HIM. Don't be a sheep. And realize that you will NEVER know the truth about any candidate based on secondhand information. No matter how much information is at our hands, we have no idea of knowing whether it's true or not. And just because you hear it or see it more than once doesn't mean that it's true. What would have happened if no one investigated whether that National Guard report was true or not and just took it at face value? Bush would have been investigated just like Kerry, and with how easily records disappear or get changed, Bush could have been in serious trouble. Imagine that. 
That said, I really enjoyed reading what you had to say. It's written very well, it's very persuasive, and it's interesting. Prior to the debate last week, in which Kerry took every opportunity to bring up Vietnam (not necessarily in a bad way, but still persistent), I would have said that we need to just forget about Vietnam for now. But I honestly want to know the truth about this, as I'm sure you do, as well. So I hope that you have more research that you just haven't put up yet. And I hope that the rest of the site is as well-presented. |
|
|
liberalcow
2 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2004 : 00:32:39
|
| I am delighted to see more sources, and you've even added things to other portions of the site. Of course, now you're resorting to adding still more conservative sites, and, worse than that, blogs and op/ed sites - even forums! I saw a great CD title the other day: Making History By Repeating It. You're doing a great job of repeating your "facts"...but corroborating them? Anyone can write an opinion piece that just cites sources that cross-reference themselves. But showing actual documentation...now there's a feat (yay, toes!). One has to be very careful, though. Even with a mountain of documentation, facts are very easily spun after forty years. For example, I flipped through Unfit Commander: Texans for Truth Take on George W. Bush today. It has copies of his records from the National Guard, which is really rather nifty, but the documents themselves are pretty innocuous. But wait! The paragraphs before the documents point out what you're looking for: that Bush checked the box next to "Do not volunteer for overseas", which means....HA! He never intended to go to Vietnam! It's a conspiracy. Or maybe it's just a liberal spin on something that has no relevance. So facts are facts....but when people start telling you what to get from those facts, they suddenly become opinion. That's what you need to avoid if you want any credence in your work. You've done more than some sites I've seen recently have - you actually have sources listed/cited. I know it's too much to ask for liberal or Democratic sources - I'd like to see you find those...bahahaha - but can we go a little more moderate here? No pressure. But you only have two weeks to convince me. So hurry!!! |
 |
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Criticism. I am not a steak. Don't grill me.
