[RobRoy]

>>LOL. If I post articles from the MSM you cry "liberal", if I post from conservative blogs you cry "clowns" or "blogpimpery", and if I post from gold or bear sites you call it "gloomwhoring" or "goldbuggery." Gee, if I didn't know any better, I'd say your real problem is with the message, not the sources.<<

This is one reason I don't give people individual sources. There is a skeleton in EVERY closet. And to suggest that people with "agendas" don't have valid opinions is like saying a jew in late 1930's germany should be ignored when he comments on the nazis because he has an agenda.

I have learned so see if the words stand of their own strength.

[Petronski]

And to suggest that people with "agendas" don't have valid opinions is like saying a jew in late 1930's germany should be ignored when he comments on the nazis because he has an agenda.

LOL   Good grief.

It's not like that at all.

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is one reason I don't give people individual sources.

Your anecdotes are much stronger if you don't bother to source them.

[expat_panama]

I don't give people individual sources....   ....see if the words stand of their own strength.

That works with points of belief and logic and not when you're trying to base that logic on an observation.   If others aren't allowed to make the same observation independently, then they're being expected to take your word for it.

It's the choice between saying "unemployment is down because it's morally good to trust the government", or saying "the BLS announced lower unemployment".