"Sammuel Goldstein" 
wrote in message
news:dbro41lkflrkuqn8se0lnv1oeldhnvneq6{at}4ax.com...
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:05:22 GMT, "Jeff"

> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Felix D."  wrote in message
>>news:ds-dneWBI85QFNbfRVn-tg{at}comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Jeff"  wrote in message
>>> news:Rco2e.510$44.190{at}newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Felix D."  wrote in message
>>>> news:mPadnfGma5C-kNffRVn-iw{at}comcast.com...
>>>> >
>>>> > "j r sherman" 
wrote in message
>>>> > news:d2cj2u0d9j{at}drn.newsguy.com...
>>>> >
>>>> >> like those Republican liberals in congress? and the liberal
>>>> >> president?
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > They wanted a new review of the case; by refusing to do so, the
>>> judiciary
>>>> > ignored the legislative and executive branch.  Do you
really think
>>> that's
>>>> > a
>>>> > good thing?
>>>>
>>>> I don't think it is a good thing for the legislative and executive
>>> branches
>>>> telling the courts what to do.
>>>
>>> And the courts have no business doing the legislature's job, either.
>>
>>According to the report on NPR,
>
> liebral tripe from lieberal sources.. 

NPR may be liberal to some degree, (but likely far less than many rightards
apparently believe) but that doesn't mean any particular report is
automatically inaccurate.  Indeed, their demographic is well educated and
well informed, the kind of people who won't listen to tripe and don't like
being lied to.  Now, Faux News, on the other hand, has positioned itself
squarely in the Repug camp, which is well documented in their own leaked
internal memos as well as being obvious from merely viewing a typical
broadcast.  Research has indicated that the more a person relies on Faux
News, the more misinformed they are about the major events of the day.

So, if you choose not to deal in facts, that's your business.  Perhaps you
are made uncomfortable by the gulf between what you believe and the facts
presented.  Perhaps you enjoy being pandered to by being spoon-fed political
spin that asks for no critical thinking on your part.  Perhaps you simply
haven't had an opportunity to consider information from sources you are
unaccustomed to.  But I respectfully suggest that you have been led down the
Primrose Path.

True, it's easier to simply dismiss the source out of hand when you don't
like or agree with the content than it is to address the actual content on
its merits.  But you would do well to consider alternate sources of
information in addition to whatever you usually rely on.  It gives you a
more well rounded perspective.  You may still disagree, but at least you
would have to consider exactly what they were wrong about and why they were
wrong about it.  In any case, you would probably end up with a firmer grasp
of the facts as well as of the arguments from various sides.  But if you
prefer the comfort and certainty of ignorance over anything that might shake
your composure, make you think, or improve your understanding of both the
facts and the debate about the facts, by all means, continue your present
course.

Jeff McCann (not the other Jeff posting in this thread, too)




--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 4/1/05 4:47:41 AM ---