Replies

In case you're not aware of this, let me just state my opinion: the AP has a very strong negative bias against President Bush and other Republican political leaders. Everything written by AP writers has to be carefully fact-checked to see if it is the truth and the whole truth.

You know, this is all starting to P*SS me off.

I do not need any "instructions," "directions," or "informative advice" from anyone on how to evaluate a source for information, or anything else.

I was evaluating "sources" as a covert Intelligence Agent in Nam, and a subsequently as Fed Agent in the Office of Special Investigations (in the 60's) when you, and most other Freepers, were probably still wearing short pants.

Perhaps if some of you would take the time to read what others write and evaluate their missives, then you could save yourself (and others, like myself) a lot of time and aggravation.

I'm 63; been around (I would venture to wage) just a little more than you--or most other Freepers and did not just fall off the turnip truck.

I am--and have been for most of my life--a conservative.

Moreover, I am well aware of how the MSM and its many sources slant the news and how most, hate W and all of us silent majority, red state, conservatives.

As I said, if you would take the time to re-read my post, you would note that I referred to AP, as the "APROPRIATED PRESS."

Is that a hint? Do you have a clue, yet? Is that plain enough for you and all the others who have been giving me so much sh*t that of which I think of the "source?"

Yet like the proverbial stopped watch, the AP, Reuters, the NY Slime, or even on occasion, Pravda, can get it right once in a while, and to completely discount ANYTHING out of hand, without objectively seeking a more in depth search for facts, simply by considering the source, is to be disingenuous and narrow-minded, in the extreme.

First of all, I didn't completely discount this article out of hand. I said that everything from the AP has to be carefully fact-checked. I haven't read all the other posts, so some other people may have rejected this article completely.

Given that you were a "a covert Intelligence Agent in Nam" and you say you're a conservative, it's unusual that you would post an attack article like this without doing more research first so you could also post information about the other side of this story. If you're looking for information about the other side of this issue, this is a good place to find it, but it is unusual for a conservative to post an article like this and start attacking Bush in the middle of your post. That's why people are reacting the way they are.

There are some other aspects of your post that raise questions with me, but I don't want to be too confrontational with you because you probably are a real conservative. But let me just say that many other people on this site (including myself) have backgrounds in information analysis and we're quick to notice posts that do not fit the usual behavior for conservatives. So tell me, why didn't you do more research into this subject before shouting at Bush with this sentence?: "WHERE IS PRESIDENT BUSH AND WHY IS HIS LEADERSHIP LEFT WANTING?"

Do you really think it's the role of the POTUS to spend his time at this level of detail, and did it ever occur to you that one of those covert agencies (CIA/NSA) is already doing this kind of explosives detection in secret and thus DHS doesn't need the budget for this activity?