posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 07:54 PM
You bring up some interesting points, and one of the pet peeves I have with the way some people argue here. You can post pretty much anything, no
matter how ridiculous it is, as long as you can cite a reference that someone else is willing to accept. Failure to cite a reference, even for things
everyone knows to be true, means you are lying or gullible or regurgitating rhetoric, and so on. The problem is that a cited reference is just someone
else's word. How many do you need before it becomes acceptable information? And lets not forget that if the source is questionable to someone then
nothing they ever say can be taken as fact. Nothing. Which means there is no such thing as a reputable source anywhere for anything. If you cite
something from the Daily Mail people will jump all over you then cite something from CNN to show how wrong you are. And completely miss the hypocrisy
in the process. That little paradox is something people are willing to overlook as long as it is convenient and supports their position. People have
two standards - an acceptable slant for their views and an unacceptable slant for the opposition.
I stopped getting "news" from news stations long ago. For the most part they don't report news any more, just opinions. I listen to the subject, then
skip the opinions and look around for my own information. Though I have to confess, lately I have become a bit lazy. I listen to both the right and
left sides and feel confident the truth is somewhere in between. I weigh the two sides and tend toward the one that sounds less ridiculous.