[prz]

SD, who are you a journalist for?

[Stephen Dame]

SD, who are you a journalist for?

Today? Quebecor, SunMedia, freelance... oh, and don't forget the prestigious Uni paper. (Their editorial stance is "All the clevage that's fit to print.")

[VioletlightHeron]

Kim, I was referring to Sudan and Rwanda as the US having no strategic national interests. My opinion is the European countries have their own strategic interests and when it isnt in their interest to intervene in countries like Rwanda and Sudan they want the US to take on the burden of dealing with the problem. France, in my opinion, didnt want the war in Iraq to happen because they had business dealings with Saddam in the UN Oil for Food program and weren't willing to risk losing those connections. That's their business, countries do that every day. The US's relations with some countries (France, Russia, China for a couple examples) are always going to be more "correct" (diplo speak for doing business on a tit for tat, business relationship) than our relations with Germany, Britain and Canada.

[The Horrible Esthete]

E, there are reasons I'm not debating with you. Your unwillingness to discuss and your tendency to badger, insult and argue is just one of those reasons. Your arguments in the past, especially your offensive (and borderline racist) remarks in a political discussion a few months ago are what first alerted me to stear clear of your path... you can have your name calling, you can feel as superior as you wish. I'll leave this thread to you, and wish you the best.

What are you so worked up about anyway? Does everyone have to agree with you? You really need to start considering that other opinions, while perhaps not your own (Such as Bush deliberatly doctoring information as opposed to CBS news being lax and getting duped) may have some validity.

I should just let this die, but if you cast stones, I will defend myself.

If you don’t want to engage in debate with me because you think my tactics are insufferable, fine. I’m sorry you feel that way. I simply posted a counterpoint to Toque’s statement, which I think was rational and valid. You entered the discussion only to disagree (which is fine), but did so only by slamming Bush (while the issue is journalistic credibility, not credibility in politics), and failed to provide any support or reasoning in your dissent. I called that ‘weak’, and it is. I then tried to re-focus you on the issue at hand, and allow you to explain your points of dissent, which you obviously could not do. If you want to construct a dialogue, and worthwhile discussion, then why would you resort to cut-and-run tactics?

“As a journalist, I couldn't disagree with you more. Rather messed up. Bush and crew are kings of calculated misinformation.” - S. Dame

How is that retort conducive to discussion? With that reply, you managed to disagree with my statement (without bothering to explain or support your logic), and somehow shift the focus from Rather’s journalistic integrity to Bush. I simply don’t see how this demonstrates that I’m the one with an “unwillingness to discuss”. Try mixing in a fact or two, or attempt to support your claim. Until you do this, your opinion deserves no respect or consideration. Anyone can make sweeping generalizations or unfounded accusations. See “Rather, Dan”.

Let’s get one thing straight here, Dame. The only “name-calling” to appear this exchange was when you called me a “blind partisan”. Remember? I did insinuate that your obvious distaste for GWB hinders your ability to be rational and fair, but again, that was because your response failed to even remotely address the points I raised in my initial post - in fact, it altogether ignored them. This is why I am so aggressive in my argument (not “worked up”). No, everyone does not “have to agree with me”. But if you are going to disagree, you’d better do a far better job of outlining your position and supporting it, and refrain from vague and factless assertions. This is what fair debate is all about.

And one final defense: the accusations of racism you direct at me are completely baseless. And the only thing worse than being a racist is being falsely accused of such, and that DOES get me worked up. You assigned a meaning to my words that were not intended, and I explain this in-depth in that thread. I will post the link to that thread, so anyone who questions my defense this can read for themselves. What you are doing with such an accusation is insulting, and flat-out wrong. It just proves that you’ll turn to disparaging my character once you fail to discredit my logic and rationale. That’s just plain cheap, Steve.

It culminates with my last post in the thread (which conveniently exhibits your withdraw once I defended myself):

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://forum.hipbase.com/viewtopic.php?t=3422&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=120">http://forum.hipbase.com/viewtopic.php? ... &start=120</a><!-- m -->

[beanmedic]

journaistic malpractice? are you kidding? i think CNN wrote the book on journalistic malpractice.