Presidential Debate

[Sir_Die_alot]

You're saying you have to listen to every piece of crap, equally, that shows up.

I say you have to look at both sides equally. If you want to be the kind of schmuck that only listens to Rush Limbaugh, Micheal Moore or (insert political mouthpiece here) then go for it. If that's what Gris said (Though I can't read that into her post), then yeah I misunderstood and she would be wrong in that case.

Griselda is saying that you must exercise educated judgement to know who's worth listening to in the first place.  Your methodology would put Fox News on par with the New York Times.  Indicating this, in this august group of debaters, is laughable.

No, I'm speaking of political mud here. If you are going to spout the anti-Bush stuff as completely factual, then you should know that the there more facets to things than the DNC's.

I would listen to a respected source who would tell me information of any sort, whether I agree or not.  Doing so leads to an "informed opinion", which is the only type worth having.

Keep listening to your "respected source", if that's what you like. I'll keep digging at the different ones, and I think I will have a more "informed opinion" for it. Maybe we disagree on that, but you won't convince me that I am wrong.

I would not, however, listen to those who scream the loudest, with the most dire of warnings, if they haven't an ounce of credibility to back them up nor the mileage to garner my respect in the first place.

And yet you seem to have anyway. Your mantra is fresh out of the well funded, very vocal distortionists at moveon.org. Perhaps you don't listen to "those who scream the loudest" but can you still be so sure your "respected source" doesn't?