America?s day of shame

GreatBarracuda

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,135
0
0
America?s day of shame

By David Walsh
21 January 2005

In yesterday?s inaugural address, George W. Bush gave notice to the world that American imperialism intends to press forward with its drive for world domination. The US president issued a call to arms, a jihad, making clear that no country or government will be permitted to stand in America?s path.

With this speech, Bush and those elements in the ruling elite for whom he speaks set out to dispel any illusions that either the disaster in Iraq or mass international opposition to Washington?s militarism will deter his new administration from pursuing its reactionary goals.

True to form, Bush delivered a series of disconnected assertions, lies and banalities. He made no coherent argument, but repeated certain key phrases over and over again, centering on the God-given mandate of the US to intervene anywhere in the world to advance the cause of ?freedom.? In a 20-minute speech, the president uttered the words ?free? or ?freedom? 34 times, and the word ?liberty? another 12 times.

The absurd repetition of ?freedom? is unlikely to deceive anyone, certainly not victims and opponents of his first administration?s crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the rest of this government stand waist deep in blood and filth, responsible for the killing of more than 100,000 Iraqis and the death and maiming of thousands of American soldiers.

The US government and military have spelled out what sort of ?freedom? they have in mind for the Iraqi people and the rest of the world in Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib and Fallujah: repression, torture, military occupation, the destruction of entire cities. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan also promised to ?liberate? the populations of Europe and Asia.

The reactionary, fantastical substance of Bush?s speech cannot be separated from its setting. The freedom that Bush continually invoked to justify militarism and war was conspicuously absent at the inauguration. Virtual martial law had been imposed in the nation?s capital. Thousands of protesters were kept out of sight by an army of police.

At one point, while Bush was reaffirming his dedication to the cause of liberty, a policeman could be seen demanding that a banner be taken down. Toward the end of speech the television cameras showed protesters, who had apparently dared to boo Bush?s remarks, being taken into custody.

The master of ceremonies at the inauguration, Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, had been forced to resign in disgrace as Senate majority leader in 2002 following his praise for the 1948 presidential campaign of Strom Thurmond, who ran as the candidate of the States? Rights Party on a segregationist program. One news commentator spoke of the particularly strong ?Mississippi influence? in the inaugural events. The noxious power of the Christian right could be felt throughout. Prayers, religious hymns and praise to God abounded.

Bush?s address was yet another opportunity to instill a mood of fear and anxiety in the US population. He spoke of ?whole regions of the world [that] simmer in resentment and tyranny,? presumably referring, in particular, to the Middle East. By a crude sleight of hand Bush transformed these regions?which simmer with resentment toward Washington for supporting tyrannical regimes in the area and invading Iraq?into a ?mortal threat? to the American people.

A central theme was that, after 9/11, America?s divine mission to spread ?freedom? throughout the world coincided with US national security. Or, to strip the argument of bombast and state the message more bluntly, the American people had either to kill, or be killed.

Bush observed that after the ?shipwreck of communism? had come a number of years of peace and tranquility, which were suddenly disrupted by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001?what he called, in quasi-Biblical terms, ?the day of fire.? Now we understand, he claimed, that the ?best hope for peace in the world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.?

The events to which Bush referred are internally connected, but not in the manner he suggested. The collapse of Stalinism in the USSR and Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s set the stage for the current eruption of US aggression. The end of the Soviet Union provided the opportunity, as far as the American ruling elite was concerned, for the United States to overcome its decline in economic dominance through the use of military might. The Bush administration is the congealed expression of this new policy, for whose implementation the events of September 11 merely provided the pretext.

In keeping with the delusional character of the Bush administration?s imperial project, the inaugural speech had an undertone of panic, even dementia. This government relentlessly and deliberately seeks to sow fear and hysteria, but within in its own mentality there is a streak of desperation and paranoia. The American ruling elite believes it has only a brief window of opportunity to push back the forces that threaten to engulf it.

?Ending tyranny in our world,? Bush declared, was now ?the calling of our time.? This should be taken as an ominous warning. The invasion of Iraq was only a prologue.

Much of the media commentary dismissed Bush?s speech as inaugural rhetoric, with no implications for policy. This is profoundly mistaken. There are striking parallels between the conduct of the Bush administration and the increasing derangement of German foreign policy in the late 1930s, as the economic situation facing German imperialism grew ever more desperate.

The objective background to Bush?s call to arms lies in US capitalism?s massive budget and trade deficits, the steep decline of the US dollar, and an economic structure that is becoming increasingly impossible to sustain. Taking him at his word, and understanding that ?the expansion of freedom? is a code phrase for aggression, Bush yesterday outlined a program of unrestrained militarism all over the world.

Preparations for war against Iran have already been exposed, by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. This week, in an opening statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during her confirmation hearing, Bush?s nominee for secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, listed those countries at the top of the hit list for US aggression. Rice cited as ?outposts of tyranny? North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Belarus, Zimbabwe and Burma. She went on to issue threats against Venezuela and Syria. The Bush administration is proposing a policy of subversion and military intervention that extends to the continents of South America, Europe, Asia and Africa.

The president did not admit in his inaugural address of any restrictions on the right of the US to topple governments and invade their territories. There was not so much as lip service to the sovereignty of nations, the role of the United Nations, the authority of treaties, the requirements of international law.

He warned America?s allies that ?division among free nations [i.e., opposition to Washington?s dictates] is a primary goal of freedom?s enemies.?

Bush addressed himself ?to the peoples of the world,? pledging to liberate them from ?oppression.? But the people of the world, in their overwhelming majority, have already seen through him. According to the Christian Science Monitor, ?By most accounts President Bush is almost universally disliked, even reviled, around the world. ... Mr. Bush may be the least-liked American leader in history.? The Program on International Policy Attitudes reported last fall that ?just one in five people surveyed around the world [in 32 countries] support the re-election of President Bush.?

According to a Zogby poll taken in mid-2004, the percentage of Arabs?the supposed beneficiaries of America?s democratic crusade in the Middle East?with a favorable opinion toward the US had dropped dramatically in nearly every country surveyed. For example, 98 percent of Egyptians polled expressed a negative view of the US. Another survey concluded that a majority of people in Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan and Turkey, along with France and Germany, believe Washington is conducting its ?global war on terror? to seize control of Middle East oil and dominate the world.

Nor does Bush possess any mandate in the US for his policies of unending war and reaction. After narrowly winning an election through hysteria over war and terrorism, and by exploiting the political confusion of the population and the impotence of the Democratic Party, Bush has registered the worst popularity rating for a reelected president embarking on his second term in the last half-century. A solid and growing majority believe the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. Nor is there mass support for radically tampering with Social Security or the tax code.

When Bush turned to the situation in the US and addressed his ?fellow citizens,? the speech lost whatever shreds of coherence it had up to then evinced. At times, one had no idea what he was talking about. Bush made only a passing reference to the bitter divisions in the country, and not one concrete reference to the poverty, deteriorating living conditions and oppressive indebtedness that afflict wide layers of the population.

He spoke about the idealism of ?a few Americans,? that is, those involved in spying, invading and occupying other countries. He urged young people to draw inspiration from the ?duty and allegiance in the determined faces of our soldiers.? The US has need, Bush went on, of idealism and courage to finish ?the work of American freedom,? a task which he left undefined.

He did make oblique reference to privatizing social security and called for the building of an ?ownership society??in other words, a society in which the wealth of the elite is untouchable, while the rest of the population is left to fend for itself.

Bush, who presided over the execution of 152 people while governor of Texas, and whose streak of personal sadism is well known, extolled the virtues of ?mercy? and having ?a heart for the weak.?

He concluded: ?America, in this young century, proclaims liberty throughout all the world, and to all the inhabitants thereof.?

The world?s inhabitants, beware!

After all that has happened in the past four years, the spectacle of George W. Bush taking the oath of office for a second time was a deeply shameful event in US history. A stench of criminality hangs about this administration?and the entire US political and media establishment. Those cheering Bush did so for a reason: he appeals to the most reactionary and ignorant sections of the population.

The US ruling elite, which has no rational or progressive solutions to the contradictions of American capitalism, is tobogganing with its eyes closed toward catastrophe, with the moral and intellectual cipher George W. Bush at its helm.

The great hostility toward Bush and his administration?s policies in the American population needs to find a genuine political voice. No illusions should be entertained in the Democrats, whose present and former leaders, including Senator John Kerry, were in obedient attendance yesterday at the inauguration. The immense and latent opposition to Bush has to be unified and directed against the foundations of the entire socio-economic status quo.

Article
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
:thumbsup: I'm glad these people think this - they are the bearers of oppression.

You think these people liked Bush's "shipwreck of communism" line? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

CsG
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
At one point, while Bush was reaffirming his dedication to the cause of liberty, a policeman could be seen demanding that a banner be taken down. Toward the end of speech the television cameras showed protesters, who had apparently dared to boo Bush?s remarks, being taken into custody.

:disgust:
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: aidanjm
At one point, while Bush was reaffirming his dedication to the cause of liberty, a policeman could be seen demanding that a banner be taken down. Toward the end of speech the television cameras showed protesters, who had apparently dared to boo Bush?s remarks, being taken into custody.

:disgust:

I'm sure the "World Socialst Web Site" is quite the unbiased source :D
 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,839
551
126
ROFL The World Socialist Web Site

omg that was great





International socialists unite!! Sieg Heil!!! :D
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Thousands of blubbering protesters, and a couple dozen are brought into custody... not that they could be doing anything unlawful of course :roll: Shouldn't they be pointing their attacks on Cuba or something, a place where you're busted for 1/100 the infraction and "custody" means you might come back a couple weeks later a little black and blue (if you come back at all)?

Who has the time for bozos like Walsh?
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: aidanjm
At one point, while Bush was reaffirming his dedication to the cause of liberty, a policeman could be seen demanding that a banner be taken down. Toward the end of speech the television cameras showed protesters, who had apparently dared to boo Bush?s remarks, being taken into custody.

:disgust:

I'm sure the "World Socialst Web Site" is quite the unbiased source :D


bias = an opinion

Yes, the author of this article has an opinion! Ooh! What is the world coming to?!?

Are there factual errors contained in my quote from the article (or in the entire article)? If so, then please point them out.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: aidanjm
At one point, while Bush was reaffirming his dedication to the cause of liberty, a policeman could be seen demanding that a banner be taken down. Toward the end of speech the television cameras showed protesters, who had apparently dared to boo Bush?s remarks, being taken into custody.

:disgust:

I'm sure the "World Socialst Web Site" is quite the unbiased source :D


bias = an opinion

Yes, the author of this article has an opinion! Ooh! What is the world coming to?!?

Are there factual errors contained in my quote from the article (or in the entire article)? If so, then please point them out.


Yes, the protesters that were arrested or "taken into custody" were not singled out for their booing. You suppose it might have to do with an actual illegal act? Nah, that wouldn't fit in with this nice little hate piece...

Oh, and I don't care that it's a biased piece or an opinion piece. I love to see this stuff floated out there for people to see.:) Keep posting it, and make sure to print a page out for all your friends:p

CsG
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: aidanjm
At one point, while Bush was reaffirming his dedication to the cause of liberty, a policeman could be seen demanding that a banner be taken down. Toward the end of speech the television cameras showed protesters, who had apparently dared to boo Bush?s remarks, being taken into custody.

:disgust:

I'm sure the "World Socialst Web Site" is quite the unbiased source :D


bias = an opinion

Yes, the author of this article has an opinion! Ooh! What is the world coming to?!?

Are there factual errors contained in my quote from the article (or in the entire article)? If so, then please point them out.


Yes, the protesters that were arrested or "taken into custody" were not singled out for their booing. You suppose it might have to do with an actual illegal act?

Well you tell me, what exactly did those protesters do that led to them being taken into custody? What illegal act did they engage in? How do you know, exactly, that they were not singled out for their booing?

What about the banner?

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Nah, that wouldn't fit in with this nice little hate piece...

You say that like hate is somehow necessarily a bad or undesirable emotion. Actually, I'd describe it as an anger piece, not a hate peice, and to my mind the anger is righteous.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Oh, and I don't care that it's a biased piece or an opinion piece. I love to see this stuff floated out there for people to see.:) Keep posting it, and make sure to print a page out for all your friends:p

Cool, I'll have to start posting stuff like this myself.
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: raildogg
ROFL The World Socialist Web Site

omg that was great





International socialists unite!! Sieg Heil!!! :D

Scary Bush supporting conservatives shouldn't be allowed to have cute penguin avatars. It's misrepresentation. Only liberals have the personal qualities that warrant a cute penguin avatar.

 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,839
551
126
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: raildogg
ROFL The World Socialist Web Site

omg that was great





International socialists unite!! Sieg Heil!!! :D

Scary Bush supporting conservatives shouldn't be allowed to have cute penguin avatars. It's misrepresentation. Only liberals have the personal qualities that warrant a cute penguin avatar.

Obviously I dont support Bush on many issues. But this piece was hillarious

ROFL @ The World Socialist Web Site omg

Stalin would be proud of these douche bags
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: aidanjm
At one point, while Bush was reaffirming his dedication to the cause of liberty, a policeman could be seen demanding that a banner be taken down. Toward the end of speech the television cameras showed protesters, who had apparently dared to boo Bush?s remarks, being taken into custody.

:disgust:

I'm sure the "World Socialst Web Site" is quite the unbiased source :D


bias = an opinion

Yes, the author of this article has an opinion! Ooh! What is the world coming to?!?

Are there factual errors contained in my quote from the article (or in the entire article)? If so, then please point them out.


Yes, the protesters that were arrested or "taken into custody" were not singled out for their booing. You suppose it might have to do with an actual illegal act?

Well you tell me, what exactly did those protesters do that led to them being taken into custody? What illegal act did they engage in? How do you know, exactly, that they were not singled out for their booing?

What about the banner?

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Nah, that wouldn't fit in with this nice little hate piece...

You say that like hate is somehow necessarily a bad or undesirable emotion. Actually, I'd describe it as an anger piece, not a hate peice, and to my mind the anger is righteous.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Oh, and I don't care that it's a biased piece or an opinion piece. I love to see this stuff floated out there for people to see.:) Keep posting it, and make sure to print a page out for all your friends:p

Cool, I'll have to start posting stuff like this myself.

You'll have to provide some proof, not inuendo as to why these people were taken into custody. From the reports I read there were many of these morons who were breaking the law. There was a thread about this.

I have no doubt that socialists and communists think their hatred of Bush and his ideals is "righteous" - doesn't make it so though.;)

Go ahead, the voting public loves to see this sort of stuff.:)

<-can't wait for the next election cycle:laugh:

CsG
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: raildogg
ROFL The World Socialist Web Site

omg that was great





International socialists unite!! Sieg Heil!!! :D

Scary Bush supporting conservatives shouldn't be allowed to have cute penguin avatars. It's misrepresentation. Only liberals have the personal qualities that warrant a cute penguin avatar.

Obviously I dont support Bush on many issues. But this piece was hillarious

ROFL @ The World Socialist Web Site omg

Stalin would be proud of these douche bags

I still think you are more of a wolf than a penguin. Cute and fluffy on the outside, but with sharpish teeth, and steely eyes that stare. :)

 

ManSnake

Diamond Member
Oct 26, 2000
4,749
1
0
From: Republican National Committee <rncinfo@gop.com>

Yesterday we celebrated President Bush's Inauguration as he was sworn in to office for a second term.

Below are some exerpts of what people are saying about his inaugural address:

The Wall Street Journal: "Not Since JFK In 1960 Has An American President Provided Such An Ambitious And Unabashed Case For The Promotion Of Liberty At Home And Abroad." (Editorial, "Liberty Bell Ringer," The Wall Street Journal, 1/21/05)

William Safire, The New York Times: "I Rate It Among The Top 5 Of The 20 Second-Inaugurals In Our History. Lincoln's Profound Sermon 'With Malice Toward None' Is Incomparable, But Bush's Second Was Better Than Jefferson's Mean-Spirited Pouting At 'The Artillery Of The Press.'" (William Safire, Op-Ed, "Bush's 'Freedom Speech,'" The New York Times, 1/21/05)

NBC's Tim Russert: "Well-Crafted, Well-Delivered. The Themes Of Freedom And Liberty " I Thought The Call To National Service Will Resonate With All Americans -- Democrats, Republicans, Independents." (NBC's, "Special Coverage Of The 55th Inaugural," 1/20/05)
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: Beowulf
Socialism:thumbsdown:

Mindless dismissal of article not because of its contents but because you don't 'like' it's source:
:thumbsdown:

 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: ManSnake
From: Republican National Committee <rncinfo@gop.com>

Yesterday we celebrated President Bush's Inauguration as he was sworn in to office for a second term.

Below are some exerpts of what people are saying about his inaugural address:

The Wall Street Journal: "Not Since JFK In 1960 Has An American President Provided Such An Ambitious And Unabashed Case For The Promotion Of Liberty At Home And Abroad." (Editorial, "Liberty Bell Ringer," The Wall Street Journal, 1/21/05)

William Safire, The New York Times: "I Rate It Among The Top 5 Of The 20 Second-Inaugurals In Our History. Lincoln's Profound Sermon 'With Malice Toward None' Is Incomparable, But Bush's Second Was Better Than Jefferson's Mean-Spirited Pouting At 'The Artillery Of The Press.'" (William Safire, Op-Ed, "Bush's 'Freedom Speech,'" The New York Times, 1/21/05)

NBC's Tim Russert: "Well-Crafted, Well-Delivered. The Themes Of Freedom And Liberty " I Thought The Call To National Service Will Resonate With All Americans -- Democrats, Republicans, Independents." (NBC's, "Special Coverage Of The 55th Inaugural," 1/20/05)


The Emperor of Vulgarity

By Mike Carlton
The Sidney Morning Herald

01/21/05 "SMH" -- George Bush's second inaugural extravaganza was every bit as repugnant as I had expected, a vulgar orgy of triumphalism probably unmatched since Napoleon crowned himself emperor of the French in Notre Dame in 1804.

The little Corsican corporal had a few decent victories to his escutcheon. Lodi, Marengo, that sort of thing. Not so this strutting Texan mountebank, with his chimpanzee smirk and his born-again banalities delivered in that constipated syntax that sounds the way cold cheeseburgers look, and his grinning plastic wife, and his scheming junta of neo-con spivs, shamans, flatterers and armchair warmongers, and his sinuous evasions and his brazen lies, and his sleight of hand theft from the American poor, and his rape of the environment, and his lethal conviction that the world must submit to his Pax Americana or be bombed into charcoal.

Difficult to know what was more repellent: the estimated $US40 million cost of this jamboree (most of it stumped up by Republican fat-cats buying future presidential favours), or the sheer crassness of its excess when American boys are dying in the quagmire of Bush's very own Iraq war.

Other wartime presidents sought restraint. Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address in 1865 - "with malice toward none, with charity for all" - is the shortest ever. And he had pretty much won the Civil War by that time.

In 1944, Franklin Delano Roosevelt opened his fourth-term speech with the "wish that the form of this inauguration be simple and its words brief". He spoke for a couple of eloquent minutes, then went off to a light lunch, his wartime victory almost complete as well.

But restraint is not a Dubya word. Learning nothing, the dumbest and nastiest president since the scandalous Warren Harding died in 1923, Bush is now intent on expanding the Iraq war to neighbouring Iran.

Condoleezza Rice did admit to the US Senate this week that there had been some "not so good" decisions. But the more I see of her gleaming teeth and her fibreglass helmet of hair and her perky confidence, the more I am convinced that back in the '60s she used to be Cindy Birdsong, up there beside Diana Ross as one of the Supremes of Motown fame. I don't think it's a good idea to let her make a comeback as Secretary of State.

etc.

...


--------------
 

Beowulf

Golden Member
Jan 27, 2001
1,446
0
71
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Beowulf
Socialism:thumbsdown:

Mindless dismissal of article not because of its contents but because you don't 'like' it's source:
:thumbsdown:

Oh am sorry maybe because I lived in Cuba and I know how much it sucks especially when 500bux is 2 years worth of work for some ppl(most likely its money sent to Cuba from an exile family member).
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: aidanjm
At one point, while Bush was reaffirming his dedication to the cause of liberty, a policeman could be seen demanding that a banner be taken down. Toward the end of speech the television cameras showed protesters, who had apparently dared to boo Bush?s remarks, being taken into custody.

:disgust:

I'm sure the "World Socialst Web Site" is quite the unbiased source :D


bias = an opinion

Yes, the author of this article has an opinion! Ooh! What is the world coming to?!?

Are there factual errors contained in my quote from the article (or in the entire article)? If so, then please point them out.


Yes, the protesters that were arrested or "taken into custody" were not singled out for their booing. You suppose it might have to do with an actual illegal act?

Well you tell me, what exactly did those protesters do that led to them being taken into custody? What illegal act did they engage in? How do you know, exactly, that they were not singled out for their booing?

What about the banner?

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Nah, that wouldn't fit in with this nice little hate piece...

You say that like hate is somehow necessarily a bad or undesirable emotion. Actually, I'd describe it as an anger piece, not a hate peice, and to my mind the anger is righteous.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Oh, and I don't care that it's a biased piece or an opinion piece. I love to see this stuff floated out there for people to see.:) Keep posting it, and make sure to print a page out for all your friends:p

Cool, I'll have to start posting stuff like this myself.

You'll have to provide some proof, not inuendo as to why these people were taken into custody. From the reports I read there were many of these morons who were breaking the law. There was a thread about this.

According to the article, the protesters were only "apparently" taken into custody because of their booing. The author hasn't made a categorical claim here.

How do you explain the demand that the protest banner be taken down? Does that not seem an incongruous backdrop for Bush's prattle on freedom and liberty?

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I have no doubt that socialists and communists think their hatred of Bush and his ideals is "righteous" - doesn't make it so though.;)

Has it been established that the author of this article is a socialist or communist?

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Go ahead, the voting public loves to see this sort of stuff.:)

<-can't wait for the next election cycle:laugh:

CsG

 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Beowulf
Socialism:thumbsdown:

Mindless dismissal of article not because of its contents but because you don't 'like' it's source:
:thumbsdown:

source is most important.

No. An ability or willingness to assess the article on its own merits is one hallmark of a critical mind. Source is something to take into account when assessing credibility, but it is not the be all and end all.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Wow, what is basically an opinion piece from a hilariously biased website. I hate Bush, too, but that article is basically worthless.
 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,839
551
126
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Beowulf
Socialism:thumbsdown:

Mindless dismissal of article not because of its contents but because you don't 'like' it's source:
:thumbsdown:

source is most important.

No. An ability or willingness to assess the article on its own merits is one hallmark of a critical mind. Source is something to take into account when assessing credibility, but it is not the be all and end all.

lets say something similar came from Newsmax.com, would you still find it credible?