DGDevin wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...

Ah yes, The American Thinker, home of Ed Lasky who never met a
smear-tactic
he didn't like. Say, there's a real credible source, right up there
with DailyKOS in terms of believability.

Yep, to the statist progressive, citing facts is considered a smear
tactic. You just threw in that Daily KOS (a site that does *not* deal in
facts, but rather feelings) statement to lend credibility to your smear.

To the right-wingnut droid any suggestion that one of his parade marshals
doesn't speak the gospel truth brings forth just this sort of reaction.
Lasky smells like a garbage truck, but you'll happily hold your nose and
believe whatever he says tomorrow anyway. You know what the difference is
between left-wingnuts and right-wingnuts like you? Nothing.

Did you read the cited article? If not, then you have no position to make
any kind of statement regarding it. If you did, please cite, where, in that
article there was any sort of smear -- all that were stated were events and
facts that happened along with some conclusions to be drawn. You might not
like the facts, you might not like the conclusions, but that gives you no
place to call those things a smear.

Let me give you a hint:
Right wingnut, left wingnut == smear

Cite of documented cases of historical temperature data records being
manipulated by AGW scientists == fact, not smear. One is certainly welcome
to investigate and question the assumptions or evidence of those facts,
engaging in ad hominem against the person citing those facts however, does
not negate them, nor does it bolster the questioner's case.

In the statist's book, a smear is citing of any facts detrimental to the
statist's arguments. Statist's response to that citing of facts detrimental
is generally an ad hominem attack. e.g. "right-wingnut like you."




--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham