what sources are ok to use here.

I have posted stuff here on numerous times only to be told that links I used were biased and should not be used.

the Washington Times is not acceptable because it's owned by Rev. Moon, Any Repulican site is unacceptable because it's Republican, Free Republic is not acceptible because it's to conservative, same for Drudge, FoxNews, NewsMax, CNSNews, and Media Reseach Center. If a site has anything supporting the President then it's also biaseed and can't be used. What's acceptable? The New York Lies, I mean Times?

Seems to me that everyone will use those sites that they read. wheather it's conservative or liberal. The Liberals on this site use their sites to show what they want, but it's not okay to use conservative sites.

Is there any sites that does not lean on way or the other. Where can one go to find a truely neutral site.

The general rule of thumb is that any site, source etc which does not bash Bush is unacceptable.
Those sites which occasionally bash Bush are only acceptable when they are bashng bush.
Any site which shows accurate economic data is also not acceptable as by not showing an economy on the verge of depression the site is obviously not anti-bush enough.
Any site which does not show that Iraq is the new vietnam is not acceptable.
Any site which does not show that all job losses, rises in healthcare costs, and everything bad which happens anywhere is directly and soley atributable to Bush is not acceptable.
Any questions?

U bush people are beginning to sound a little bit depressed ..If everyone is bashing bush isn�t that pointing towards public mentality. I just wait the day elections are done with so this "bush did that and kerry said that" will stop and people will continue their everyday life of catching ufos and finding dulce base
-ap

aape, I don't think we are depressed, I was just pointing out how the left disregards anything that does not support their views. I agree with you, though, I can't wait until Bush is back in the whitehouse and we can talk about ghost, ufo's and little known American Bases in Finland.

And evidently, kids!?! At least mentally!?!
It's a personal peeve, so excuse the diatribe. This is what you & your ilk try to offer into debate:

the Washington Times is not acceptable because it's owned by Rev. Moon, Any Repulican site is unacceptable because it's Republican, Free Republic is not acceptible because it's to conservative, same for Drudge, FoxNews, NewsMax, CNSNews, and Media Reseach Center.

So, sites that are warping data to fit an agenda should be given all the credence of the NY or LA Times!? The fact that they spoon feed you your opinions is point of worry enough. That you then come to neutral sites where these sources are soundly discredited and YOU STILL SWEAR TO THEIR LEGITIMACY, is truely troubling.
The NY Times was one of the BIGGEST ENABLERS of the NeoCons lead up to the war: Pulitzer Prize winners Thomas Friedman & William Safire used those pages to pound the war drums incessently. Christ man, Safire was Nixon's speech writer!!!!! They also regularly publish David Brooks, another staunch conservative.
So, no, you can't quote those sites if you want to be taken seriously. Why even bother, if you're after the truth?
What you consider "bashing Bush" is simply no longer sugar coating a clusterf**k of a presidency....get used to it.

so let's see, the NY Times comes out and lies about 380 tones of explosives being missing and make it sound like it's all Bush's fault. Seems like NBCNews had an embedded reporter with our troops when they showed up and the explosives were gone already. You honestly think that the Times are Neutral, give me a break. appearantly you are so tied to your party that you refuse to read anything that might go against your dogma. I suppose if the NY Times printed that Kerry was traitor you would claim that they can't be trusted.

So they have a few conservative articles, big deal, FoxNews have a few liberals . Using your logic would mean that everything on Fox is true because they do present a few liberal point of views.

your logic is flawed.

Your grasp of facts are wanting, however.

I'm not a Democrat - John Kerry is far and away the best choice for president, that's why that army has my allegiance in this election. It's open knowledge that I'm a former Republican and that I was set to vote John McCain before Team Rove stole the nomination.
What you're not getting through your head is that partisan web sites are of zero value, except to mobilize their foot soldiers; In your case, the Neo-Brownshirt movement.
No respectable person, much less any respectable news source, would put John Kerry & 'traitor' in the same sentence; if you want an example of fascist-say-anything-do-anything-dogma, that's a perfect example.
As for the explosvies & what the Times reported: the International Atomic Energy Agency (remeber Blix/Kay et al? ) told the world this was there before we attacked Iraq. The post invasion "planning" did not account for the guarding of those materials. The only truth in your statement is that when they did finally get around to sending troops there, it ws already stolen.
Aboslutism of "truth" were never offered up. We can't gauge absolutes. We can see balance & industry wide respect, though. The only awards that Fox will ever win on Nielsen ratings; but hey, the WWF used to be the hottest thing on TV as well.

[edit on 26-10-2004 by Bout Time]

Yea! Another political bashing thread!!!!!

I love how it started as a request for a decent source The only TRUE unbiased source of info is ME. If you have a question, just ask, Ill give you the answer I want you to here.. I mean.. err. the answers you need

Good question! The truth can be hard to find, but it's out there. Here's a hint. Check the ads! That will usually tell you if it's a bad source, selling an agenda. An unbiased source would have ads from everyone, not just one point of view. Or maybe even no political ads at all!


Example of things you will find on a biased site.:

NewsMax


Media Research Center


Washington Times


Or accepts PayPal donations:

CNSNews.com


Anything owned by Rupert Murdoch (Fox, NY Post, etc.) who has confessed his allegiance to the Bush administration and of course, anyone who just blatantly lies, like Drudge (examples). In Matt Drudge's defense, he has never claimed he was unbiased, but I think that is even more of a reason not to trust his blog.

There are a lot of crazy sites out there, you have to be careful. People actually twist things around, until a fact says what they want them to say.

Don't believe everything the established press say, of course, but they are a lot closer to the truth, since they have roots in journalism. As opposed to the political sites that pop up, posing as journalists.

The only New York Times ad on today's front page!



The Guardian UK has an ad for a Toyota Prius on it's front page

See the diff?

Originally posted by jrsdls
I have posted stuff here on numerous times only to be told that links I used were biased and should not be used.

Well, you ARE in "Politics and Scandals"...

This means that almost any source is going to be challenged. The best sources are articles that present the facts and are free of language that indicates they're taunting or slamming the other position.

A good rule of thumb is that if makes it as a headline in news.yahoo.com... or if it's a headline in news.google.com... then you can simply point out the integrity of the article (as long as you don't put a particularly negative spin on it.)

Here's an example:

If I post this one:

story.news.yahoo.com.../ap/20041026/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp

Kerry: Bush Won't Own Up to Bad Decisions
By MARY DALRYMPLE and CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writers

GREEN BAY, Wis. - Democratic candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) accused President Bush (news - web sites) on Tuesday of hiding bad decisions and raised the specter of bad news still to be revealed. Bush invited Democrats to cross over to his campaign as it began its final week, arguing that their party was no longer led by men of strength and resolve.

...then folks can yodel all they like about Kerry's comments, etc, but my position would be that it's an AP story and they checked the facts.

If, on the other hand, I gave it a controversial title (like: "Bush Afraid To Admit He's Wrong -- Thousands Die!") and give my interpretation of the news article ("Look at the scumbag -- he's so arrogant and psychotic that he thinks he's being directed by God") then I can expect to be hopped on (and my sources challenged) by almost everyone.

Let's face it -- the election is nasty, and the unpleasantness is bleeding over into other areas of the internet culture. Oftentimes a difference in political parties can get us ragingly mad at someone that we might otherwise get along with.

Best tactic is to stick with the news, save the snide comments, and let others respond how they will. There is no truly unbiased news source, but ones that bring less flak are the major news services.

Byrd,

Thanks for the insight, I realize that this is a political fourm, and we should be able to expouse our views. This election is highly charged and people are very passionately about their guy. I wanted to know what sites most people considered good to use.

IMO - Read everything from every site - then investigate the claims yourself. Everyone has an ax to grind and it's up to you (and hopefully) everyone on the board to find the underlying truth.

I'd just like to see more people ask questions about an article that is posted rather than immediately disagreeing or agreeing with its content.

I agree with you Bleys, most of the posts I post are designed to bring out a discussion, but unfortunatelly the get killed because of where the information comes from.