Are you and Chouan coworkers or friends?
Both sounded like market research.
Here is Chouan
who is this “us” that you speak of? Are you a collective group here with a single mind that share the same opinions?
You’re assuming a lot. I stated my point here in my posts - I thought I was clear about it. I don’t take a partisan report seriously since it appears they have a political agenda. That’s my main point. The report has been discredited by default due to its source - according to me, anyway. That’s my point.
What do you consider to be impartial sources of information?
Ah, Witnessing:
Brit Hume, Dana Parino, Tony Snow, Trent Lott.
Who are you going to listen the, the eeeeeeevil librul media? Sucker!
-Joe
I think all the sources they used, they used to create a slanted perception or view of reality in this report.
for instance, I can use their same sources and come out with a completely different report based on my own perception of things.
But you’re a supporter of the other side. Should we have automatically dismissed your arguments because of your impartiality?
So if people are convinced that BUSH LIED OMG HE LIED then how come no impeachment?
For the record, I’m more of a moderate, an independent.
You can dismiss my arguement if it was favoring one side over the other, but the point I make works both ways… If a conservative right thinktank came out with a report, you can certainly consider the sources, but also consider that the report came from a right-leaning thinktank who clearly has a specific agenda to push.
How can you dismiss this argument? Well, you could, but you’d look like you’re in denial.
What are you saying, did Bush lie under oath?
… oh wait, that was Clinton. my bad.
Moderacy (is that word?) doesn’t mean you’re automatically impartial.
But you do tend to favour one side over the other; I seem to recall you’re a Washington Post (or Times? Bloody Americans and their similar newspaper names) reader, treating it as a good source; do you automatically dismiss arguments they make in support of their political viewpoint?
Precisely. Far better to look at your argument and judge it on it’s merits. As we should all reports - not only those from mainstream media sources, but even particularly extreme ones. It’s the only way to be truly fair, even if it’s probably a foregone conclusion in some cases.
oh, and not to take this to another level, but do you recall how Saddam was ignoring UN sanctions for like 12 years? And how he continued to defy the UN, sanction after sanction? After a while, all the UN resolutions kind of looked like jokes… and the UN looked like a paper tiger, they couldn’t be taken seriously. So when Bush/Blair pushed UN Res 1441, it was approved of unanimously. Everyone voted for this. So why were they so surprised when Bush called Saddam on his defiance of this resolution?
Because others are convinced otherwise?
Oh, wait, we’re supposed to be mocking the other side for apparently no other reason than they’re there. Uhm, ok; BUSH TEH HERO OMG HERO! Better?
Because, as I understand it, he wasn’t defying it (or at least stopped being defiant).
no, it does not automatically mean anyone is impartial no matter what political philosophy they claim to be. I wanted to clarify that I am not a far right, religious right conservative - I am clearly not. I am more of a moderate; I am more of a fiscal conservative with a low taxes/small government belief system. Although it’s an anomoly that I currently support Obama… for idealistic reasons mostly. I see an extremely exciting, strong, bi-partisan leader in him. Even if is voting record indicates otherwise. I love his style… anyway, I’m rambling…
Uh, Wall Street Journal is a great source for me…
so are you suggesting that we read both left-leaning and right-leaning reports to observe the slants and come up with our own conclusions? Keep an open mind to all views? I like that, and I agree…
I believe he was defying this resolution. I also think the entire resolution was created to give him enough rope to hang himself, even if those who initially support it didn’t think any action would ever take place. They were duped… and they supported it mostly because of the “9/11” attack and sympathy for the US, it was their way of supporting Bush. But it backfired on them. Everyone who supported it initially were caught off guard when Bush/Blair wanted to use this res to invade Iraq. yeah… That’s how I recall it.
Well, if anything else i’d say it was a pretty good reason to dislike the Bush government. I’m not really up enough on the current candidate’s positions to say whether that’s good or not. 
The WSJ, then. When you come across articles of a slant towards their political viewpoint, do you automatically dismiss it?
Nope, i’m saying we read both left-leaning and right-leaning reports and attempt as much as we can to start off with an impartial view of them ourselves. Their slant, one way or the other, may give a reason why they could be less than impartial; but it doesn’t say they automatically are.
Just like with people, being left- or right-leaning may make us think “Aha! They’ll spin things to make their side look good!”, but again just as with people it’s possible for even a heavily-opinionated media source to give an accurate report. That’s why it’s important we don’t just dismiss Fox because it’s Fox, or whatever the latest liberal blog is because it’s that.
On preview; i’m afraid i’m going to have to ask you for some cites on Hussein (why is he always called Saddam, anyway?) continuing to defy the resolution right up until the invasion.
If anyone here can prove that he lied then maybe a lawsuit can be filed…
Biased reporting. More than 900 lies? Nonsense! 600-700, tops!