The Burden of Proof

[M14 Shooter]

"Valid point" is a totally different area than "burden of proof."

Yes.
The point was that to refute someone's apple, you cannot argue organges.

 

[Al_Fundie]

"Valid point" is a totally different area than "burden of proof."

"Burden of proof" relates to one's ability to support facts used to arrive at a conclusion. We can all agree that the facts are the facts: i.e. George Bush was President from 2001 through 2008. It would be absurd to challenge that fact every time it is mentioned. Just as absurd to challenge the fact that George W. Bush supported the retalitory attack on Afghanistan or the subsequent invasion of Iraq. Some things are a univerally accepted given and we can all agree without a lot of links and/or cuts and paste.

But, if we are having a conversation on the pros and cons of the Seniors Prescription Drug legislation or No Child Left Behind, signature legislation of the Bush Administration, to throw in a comment that Don Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein or Bush stole the 2000 election are irrelevent to the topic and are not at all 'valid points' whether or not they are true.

Nail on the head there. Many want to introduce their OPINIONS as facts. Perversely , it is usually those very same folks who demand proof when others state actual facts. Just a very strange phenomenon.

 

[saveliberty]

"Valid point" is a totally different area than "burden of proof."

"Burden of proof" relates to one's ability to support facts used to arrive at a conclusion. We can all agree that the facts are the facts: i.e. George Bush was President from 2001 through 2008. It would be absurd to challenge that fact every time it is mentioned. Just as absurd to challenge the fact that George W. Bush supported the retalitory attack on Afghanistan or the subsequent invasion of Iraq. Some things are a univerally accepted given and we can all agree without a lot of links and/or cuts and paste.

But, if we are having a conversation on the pros and cons of the Seniors Prescription Drug legislation or No Child Left Behind, signature legislation of the Bush Administration, to throw in a comment that Don Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein or Bush stole the 2000 election are irrelevent to the topic and are not at all 'valid points' whether or not they are true.

Nail on the head there. Many want to introduce their OPINIONS as facts. Perversely , it is usually those very same folks who demand proof when others state actual facts. Just a very strange phenomenon.

Termed Cognitive dissonance.

 

[Al_Fundie]

"Valid point" is a totally different area than "burden of proof."

Yes.
The point was that to refute someone's apple, you cannot argue organges.

Apples don't suddenly become oranges just because YOU say they do.

 

[The Infidel]

So Harry Reid should put up or shut up...

Perfect example.

This is a remark that has nothing to do with the original post, does not clarify its relation with either critcal thought, explaination or a link to data backing up the assertion.

Yes it does.... you guys dont want to admit that the left is putting shit out there to tear down Romney with ZERO proof....

Harry Reid lied and your side is letting him get away with it.

Where is Harry's proof?

Oh wait... thats our burden. Prove him wrong wrong right?

 

[Foxfyre]

Edited.

And here we have an inadvertent logical fallacy. I can easily find ten people on USMB who will say that George W. Bush was responsible for the 2008 housing bubble crash and resulting economic disaster. And I can easily find one person who has all the facts to show that while GWB shares in some components leading to that point in history, it was by no means all or mostly his doing or his fault.

The ten would be wrong, and the one would be right.

The popular point of view, most especially when it is driven by fixed ideology or partisanship, and/or based on selective 'facts' with extrenuating facts and mitigating evidence omitted, will be wrong much more often than it will be right.

 

[Immanuel]

Now the burden of proof lies with you. Can you show evidence that people have lost jobs due to Obamacare?

Anecdoctally, I can say I know my wifes company ( a health insurance company here in MN ) has hired a whole lot of new people to man the phones and sell insurance now that its mandated.Each new hire must be liscenced is paid nearly 20 bucks an hour AND gets commissions for each sale.

Anecdoctally, I did give proof. The loss of my job is proof as well as the fact that during those nearly two and a half years of searching for a job, I was told by dozens of perspective employers that they had received 500 or more resumes for one job. My experience is as valid as your wife's and besides after the gift Obama gave the Insurance companies at least until politicians enact single payer health care, each of the insurance companies needed to hire a couple of hundred employees to man the phones. That didn't come close to fixing the issue.

But since you ask for proof, here you go...

How Obamacare Hurts Job Creation - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com)



Obamacare is a jobs killer. Employers are worried about the effects it is going to have on them. The fact that no one read it when it was passed scared the hell out of people.

Me? I am probably one of the few whose biggest beef is that we just gave the U.S. Government control of more than 1/6 of the U.S. Economy and there is not a damned thing we can do about it when they start putting the screws to us.

Immie

*I* am an employer. *I* am a small business owner ( four in fact with a fifth in the planning stages )

Im not worried about Obamacare at all.

You know why? I dont believe the claims that it will force me to let people go. Because it wont. Costs increase every year. Your article claims that it will rise 5.2 % in NC next year. Guess what? It rose that much in some years BEFORE Obamacare.

AND most of the initiatives that are going into place to *try* to hold down costs, arent even in place yet.

However, THIS month will be a BIG month for Obamacare and support for it will rise. This month is the first time that health insurance companies will be sending out the rebate checks. Those rebate checks go into employer hands and guess what? Theyre SUPPOSE to share that money with their employees BUT...

The law gives employers up to three months and considerable discretion to decide how to spend the employees’ money, so long as it is eventually used to benefit insurance plan participants. And while some employers are returning the money directly in paychecks, or planning “premium holidays” that increase take-home pay, others are weighing different options, benefits consultants said, like reducing next year’s premium, or spending the refund on so-called wellness programs that reward workers who lose weight or quit smoking.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/10/n...-stall-in-employers-hands.html?pagewanted=all

So as long as an employer is creative, they can effectively hold onto that money.

The rebates also COST the Insurance companies. Its red tape that they have to pay for out of their percentage. So they dont want the hassle of sending all that money back every year, which makes it incumbent on them to lower costs, which SHOULD translate into lower premium costs. I say SHOULD because that has yet to be proven. Personally, I expect premium costs to rise for at least three years before they settle back down as insurance companies find the "sweet spot"

I don't have a lot of time this evening, but I don't think it is the rising costs that are the issue here. It is what comes next. Everyone knows Obamacare is the first step to the government controlling the industry. When that happens, I believe we are in major trouble. I happen to believe providing insurance to those who can't get it is a good thing. What I fear is someone with the attitude of an IRS agent being the person who decides what kind of medical services I am entitled to... if I am entitled to any at all.

But, this discussion is getting away from the other point I made and that is the anti-corporate attitude of the administration. In my humble opinion, in other words, I don't have time to go find a link, Washington (both Republicans and Democrats) have set about regulations that are driving many businesses out of the country to greener pastures. Corporations simply can't compete anymore with Chinese companies who undercut them because of the cheap labor and the fact that we allow so many foreign products into the country in the name of "free trade".

I am not talking about the small service companies, but large corporations. A small business that sells say accounting services in Lincoln, NE doesn't have to worry about their competitors undercutting them because of cheap labor in China, but Target has to worry about the products that Walmart brings into this country and sells for next to nothing. Ford and GM have to worry about the cost of KIAs coming into this country etc.

If outsourcing their customer service offices to India saves a corporation enough money to allow them to remain competitive, you can't blame them for doing so.

Immie

 

[Vidi]

Anecdoctally, I did give proof. The loss of my job is proof as well as the fact that during those nearly two and a half years of searching for a job, I was told by dozens of perspective employers that they had received 500 or more resumes for one job. My experience is as valid as your wife's and besides after the gift Obama gave the Insurance companies at least until politicians enact single payer health care, each of the insurance companies needed to hire a couple of hundred employees to man the phones. That didn't come close to fixing the issue.

But since you ask for proof, here you go...

How Obamacare Hurts Job Creation - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com)



Obamacare is a jobs killer. Employers are worried about the effects it is going to have on them. The fact that no one read it when it was passed scared the hell out of people.

Me? I am probably one of the few whose biggest beef is that we just gave the U.S. Government control of more than 1/6 of the U.S. Economy and there is not a damned thing we can do about it when they start putting the screws to us.

Immie

*I* am an employer. *I* am a small business owner ( four in fact with a fifth in the planning stages )

Im not worried about Obamacare at all.

You know why? I dont believe the claims that it will force me to let people go. Because it wont. Costs increase every year. Your article claims that it will rise 5.2 % in NC next year. Guess what? It rose that much in some years BEFORE Obamacare.

AND most of the initiatives that are going into place to *try* to hold down costs, arent even in place yet.

However, THIS month will be a BIG month for Obamacare and support for it will rise. This month is the first time that health insurance companies will be sending out the rebate checks. Those rebate checks go into employer hands and guess what? Theyre SUPPOSE to share that money with their employees BUT...

The law gives employers up to three months and considerable discretion to decide how to spend the employees’ money, so long as it is eventually used to benefit insurance plan participants. And while some employers are returning the money directly in paychecks, or planning “premium holidays” that increase take-home pay, others are weighing different options, benefits consultants said, like reducing next year’s premium, or spending the refund on so-called wellness programs that reward workers who lose weight or quit smoking.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/10/n...-stall-in-employers-hands.html?pagewanted=all

So as long as an employer is creative, they can effectively hold onto that money.

The rebates also COST the Insurance companies. Its red tape that they have to pay for out of their percentage. So they dont want the hassle of sending all that money back every year, which makes it incumbent on them to lower costs, which SHOULD translate into lower premium costs. I say SHOULD because that has yet to be proven. Personally, I expect premium costs to rise for at least three years before they settle back down as insurance companies find the "sweet spot"

I don't have a lot of time this evening, but I don't think it is the rising costs that are the issue here. It is what comes next. Everyone knows Obamacare is the first step to the government controlling the industry. When that happens, I believe we are in major trouble. I happen to believe providing insurance to those who can't get it is a good thing. What I fear is someone with the attitude of an IRS agent being the person who decides what kind of medical services I am entitled to... if I am entitled to any at all.

But, this discussion is getting away from the other point I made and that is the anti-corporate attitude of the administration. In my humble opinion, in other words, I don't have time to go find a link, Washington (both Republicans and Democrats) have set about regulations that are driving many businesses out of the country to greener pastures. Corporations simply can't compete anymore with Chinese companies who undercut them because of the cheap labor and the fact that we allow so many foreign products into the country in the name of "free trade".

I am not talking about the small service companies, but large corporations. A small business that sells say accounting services in Lincoln, NE doesn't have to worry about their competitors undercutting them because of cheap labor in China, but Target has to worry about the products that Walmart brings into this country and sells for next to nothing. Ford and GM have to worry about the cost of KIAs coming into this country etc.

If outsourcing their customer service offices to India saves a corporation enough money to allow them to remain competitive, you can't blame them for doing so.

Immie

To your first paragraph:

I actually see Obamacare as the largest obstacle between us and the single payer system. I realize that many people here think I like Obamacare because I will defend how it effects us, but I am actually only trying to get the argument to a point where its accurate. I actually dispise Obamacare because in my opinion it stands in the way of a true nationalized single payer system.

To the rest:

We were lied to. Its that simple. We were told Free Trade agreements would open up new markets for our goods and bring prosperity. Thats not what happened. In almost every case, foriegn markets didnt open to us like ours did with them and the trade imbalance began. Once that happend, the prosperity moved overseas.

I believe we may need something like a VAT tax , which along with other so called protectionist legislation, has helped Germany stay an economic powerhouse.

 

[Immanuel]

*I* am an employer. *I* am a small business owner ( four in fact with a fifth in the planning stages )

Im not worried about Obamacare at all.

You know why? I dont believe the claims that it will force me to let people go. Because it wont. Costs increase every year. Your article claims that it will rise 5.2 % in NC next year. Guess what? It rose that much in some years BEFORE Obamacare.

AND most of the initiatives that are going into place to *try* to hold down costs, arent even in place yet.

However, THIS month will be a BIG month for Obamacare and support for it will rise. This month is the first time that health insurance companies will be sending out the rebate checks. Those rebate checks go into employer hands and guess what? Theyre SUPPOSE to share that money with their employees BUT...




So as long as an employer is creative, they can effectively hold onto that money.

The rebates also COST the Insurance companies. Its red tape that they have to pay for out of their percentage. So they dont want the hassle of sending all that money back every year, which makes it incumbent on them to lower costs, which SHOULD translate into lower premium costs. I say SHOULD because that has yet to be proven. Personally, I expect premium costs to rise for at least three years before they settle back down as insurance companies find the "sweet spot"

I don't have a lot of time this evening, but I don't think it is the rising costs that are the issue here. It is what comes next. Everyone knows Obamacare is the first step to the government controlling the industry. When that happens, I believe we are in major trouble. I happen to believe providing insurance to those who can't get it is a good thing. What I fear is someone with the attitude of an IRS agent being the person who decides what kind of medical services I am entitled to... if I am entitled to any at all.

But, this discussion is getting away from the other point I made and that is the anti-corporate attitude of the administration. In my humble opinion, in other words, I don't have time to go find a link, Washington (both Republicans and Democrats) have set about regulations that are driving many businesses out of the country to greener pastures. Corporations simply can't compete anymore with Chinese companies who undercut them because of the cheap labor and the fact that we allow so many foreign products into the country in the name of "free trade".

I am not talking about the small service companies, but large corporations. A small business that sells say accounting services in Lincoln, NE doesn't have to worry about their competitors undercutting them because of cheap labor in China, but Target has to worry about the products that Walmart brings into this country and sells for next to nothing. Ford and GM have to worry about the cost of KIAs coming into this country etc.

If outsourcing their customer service offices to India saves a corporation enough money to allow them to remain competitive, you can't blame them for doing so.

Immie

To your first paragraph:

I actually see Obamacare as the largest obstacle between us and the single payer system. I realize that many people here think I like Obamacare because I will defend how it effects us, but I am actually only trying to get the argument to a point where its accurate. I actually dispise Obamacare because in my opinion it stands in the way of a true nationalized single payer system.

To the rest:

We were lied to. Its that simple. We were told Free Trade agreements would open up new markets for our goods and bring prosperity. Thats not what happened. In almost every case, foriegn markets didnt open to us like ours did with them and the trade imbalance began. Once that happend, the prosperity moved overseas.

I believe we may need something like a VAT tax , which along with other so called protectionist legislation, has helped Germany stay an economic powerhouse.

I have to spread the rep.

In re the second part... yeah, we were lied to and we took the bait and the hook and the sinker.

In re Single Payer Heath care: if they could guarantee me that such as system would be run in the manner of Kaiser Permanente then I would be all for it. But, we are not talking Kaiser here, we are talking much closer to the IRS or TSA. The very thought sends chills down my spine.

Immie

 

[M14 Shooter]

To the rest:
We were lied to. Its that simple. We were told Free Trade agreements would open up new markets for our goods and bring prosperity. Thats not what happened.

That does not mean we were lied to.

 

[Immanuel]

To the rest:
We were lied to. Its that simple. We were told Free Trade agreements would open up new markets for our goods and bring prosperity. Thats not what happened.

That does not mean we were lied to.

Did a politician tell us that? If so, case closed, I don't need no stinkin' proof. We were lied to.

Immie

 

[Darkwind]

And seen from the other side of the aisle


Liberal: Obama's policies have created 4.5 jobs and begun the recovery.
Conservative: Prove it.
Liberal: Here are 2 articles
Conservative: HuffPo? Rly? You can't trust them. NYT? Rly? You can't trust them.
Liberal: OK, can you prove that isn't the case?
Conservative: ....

This is exactly what I was getting at. The truth or falsehood of an assertion, is not based soley on the website from which it came.

You would need to provide evidence that would justify "not trusting" HuffPo and NYT.
Your own personal preference towards a particular website is not corroborative evidence. Providing an article refuting what was said in the initial article, is.

Actually, it is not. Providing an article that refutes what was said is nothing more than bringing in another persons opinion into the argument.

Proof of something is not found in an article, but in definitive research using tangible data.

That is why politics is as much an art form as it is a science.

I can, through the prism of My life experience, make claims based upon facts that I may not readily have at hand, or conclusions reached by critical thinking.

I get tired of the same old retort of, "Link".....I have no link to My thought processes and in truth, I know that there is no source I can link to that will satisfy the person I am debating.

So I rarely ever bother responding to requests for proof.

However, when our Politicians make assertions that slander others, they are indeed, required to provide some form of collaboration to their assertion, or risk standing before a court on civil charges.

 

[Darkwind]

To the rest:
We were lied to. Its that simple. We were told Free Trade agreements would open up new markets for our goods and bring prosperity. Thats not what happened.

That does not mean we were lied to.

Did a politician tell us that? If so, case closed, I don't need no stinkin' proof. We were lied to.

Immie

You make no distinction for the fact that someone saying something like that may just have misinterpreted the facts or misunderstood the problem and just plain got it wrong? Is it so black and white now days that a mistake will now always be called a lie?

 

[Vidi]

And seen from the other side of the aisle


Liberal: Obama's policies have created 4.5 jobs and begun the recovery.
Conservative: Prove it.
Liberal: Here are 2 articles
Conservative: HuffPo? Rly? You can't trust them. NYT? Rly? You can't trust them.
Liberal: OK, can you prove that isn't the case?
Conservative: ....

This is exactly what I was getting at. The truth or falsehood of an assertion, is not based soley on the website from which it came.

You would need to provide evidence that would justify "not trusting" HuffPo and NYT.
Your own personal preference towards a particular website is not corroborative evidence. Providing an article refuting what was said in the initial article, is.

Actually, it is not. Providing an article that refutes what was said is nothing more than bringing in another persons opinion into the argument.

Proof of something is not found in an article, but in definitive research using tangible data.

That is why politics is as much an art form as it is a science.

I can, through the prism of My life experience, make claims based upon facts that I may not readily have at hand, or conclusions reached by critical thinking.

I get tired of the same old retort of, "Link".....I have no link to My thought processes and in truth, I know that there is no source I can link to that will satisfy the person I am debating.

So I rarely ever bother responding to requests for proof.

However, when our Politicians make assertions that slander others, they are indeed, required to provide some form of collaboration to their assertion, or risk standing before a court on civil charges.

You can qualify your own statements by simply saying, " Its seems to me" or "In my opinion"

But if you post something like 50% of all dogs are yellow labs...Im going to need to see a citation.

See the difference?

 

[Vidi]

That does not mean we were lied to.

Did a politician tell us that? If so, case closed, I don't need no stinkin' proof. We were lied to.

Immie

You make no distinction for the fact that someone saying something like that may just have misinterpreted the facts or misunderstood the problem and just plain got it wrong? Is it so black and white now days that a mistake will now always be called a lie?

thats a fair assessment. Lie is too harsh a word perhaps, but I have to say that once we saw the effects of "free trade" with Japan, we should have known what the effects of the same policy was going to be with other countries as well...especially after they saw Japans example on how to destroy an American industry.

 

[Darkwind]

Did a politician tell us that? If so, case closed, I don't need no stinkin' proof. We were lied to.

Immie

You make no distinction for the fact that someone saying something like that may just have misinterpreted the facts or misunderstood the problem and just plain got it wrong? Is it so black and white now days that a mistake will now always be called a lie?

thats a fair assessment. Lie is too harsh a word perhaps, but I have to say that once we saw the effects of "free trade" with Japan, we should have known what the effects of the same policy was going to be with other countries as well...especially after they saw Japans example on how to destroy an American industry.

Perhaps. It could be a case of deciding that the test markets were too small to handle the concept or structure (I'm not defending free trade, but staying strictly on the merits of being mistaken or a liar). In that case, continuing to make choices on decision making skills could lead to an expansion of the program. No one has ever accused the US Government of not repeating the same mistake over and over...Regardless, if after tangible studies have been made, and evidence supports the failure of the program, then its is indeed, a lie to continue to support the program.

Or it is just plain partisan lemming work.

 

[Darkwind]

This is exactly what I was getting at. The truth or falsehood of an assertion, is not based soley on the website from which it came.

You would need to provide evidence that would justify "not trusting" HuffPo and NYT.
Your own personal preference towards a particular website is not corroborative evidence. Providing an article refuting what was said in the initial article, is.

Actually, it is not. Providing an article that refutes what was said is nothing more than bringing in another persons opinion into the argument.

Proof of something is not found in an article, but in definitive research using tangible data.

That is why politics is as much an art form as it is a science.

I can, through the prism of My life experience, make claims based upon facts that I may not readily have at hand, or conclusions reached by critical thinking.

I get tired of the same old retort of, "Link".....I have no link to My thought processes and in truth, I know that there is no source I can link to that will satisfy the person I am debating.

So I rarely ever bother responding to requests for proof.

However, when our Politicians make assertions that slander others, they are indeed, required to provide some form of collaboration to their assertion, or risk standing before a court on civil charges.

You can qualify your own statements by simply saying, " Its seems to me" or "In my opinion"

But if you post something like 50% of all dogs are yellow labs...Im going to need to see a citation.

See the difference?

Of course, but in the world of political posting, regardless of the assertion, there will be those who will deny any source provided, so I don't bother.

However, I DO demand that assertions of a slanderous nature against someone made by a public official demands that the proof of the assertion is provided, or that person should be subjected to civil penalties, possibly even removal from office.

 

[Billo_Really]

Actually, it is not. Providing an article that refutes what was said is nothing more than bringing in another persons opinion into the argument.

It's still considered proof and satisfy's the objector's burden of providing it.

Proof of something is not found in an article, but in definitive research using tangible data.

Proof can be found anywhere. It depends on the issue and the context in which the proof is presented. Proof can be a link, citation, logical deductive reasoning, etc. It's not just one thing and one thing only. But whatever form it takes, you must present it in order to show your objection is not frivolous.

You have to have a "reason" to object. And if you were in a court of law, you have to present evidence of that reason and show how that evidence is relevent to the case, or the judge will throw it out.

That is why politics is as much an art form as it is a science.

I can, through the prism of My life experience, make claims based upon facts that I may not readily have at hand, or conclusions reached by critical thinking.

I get tired of the same old retort of, "Link".....I have no link to My thought processes and in truth, I know that there is no source I can link to that will satisfy the person I am debating.

So I rarely ever bother responding to requests for proof.

However, when our Politicians make assertions that slander others, they are indeed, required to provide some form of collaboration to their assertion, or risk standing before a court on civil charges.

Any assertions (that are not common knowledge), made without corroborative evidence, are just opinions and beliefs, not proven facts.

 

[Vidi]

Actually, it is not. Providing an article that refutes what was said is nothing more than bringing in another persons opinion into the argument.

Proof of something is not found in an article, but in definitive research using tangible data.

That is why politics is as much an art form as it is a science.

I can, through the prism of My life experience, make claims based upon facts that I may not readily have at hand, or conclusions reached by critical thinking.

I get tired of the same old retort of, "Link".....I have no link to My thought processes and in truth, I know that there is no source I can link to that will satisfy the person I am debating.

So I rarely ever bother responding to requests for proof.

However, when our Politicians make assertions that slander others, they are indeed, required to provide some form of collaboration to their assertion, or risk standing before a court on civil charges.

You can qualify your own statements by simply saying, " Its seems to me" or "In my opinion"

But if you post something like 50% of all dogs are yellow labs...Im going to need to see a citation.

See the difference?

Of course, but in the world of political posting, regardless of the assertion, there will be those who will deny any source provided, so I don't bother.

However, I DO demand that assertions of a slanderous nature against someone made by a public official demands that the proof of the assertion is provided, or that person should be subjected to civil penalties, possibly even removal from office.

Heres the thing.

Lets say FoxNews posts a stat from the CBO. ( because we all like to use the CBO as an example lately ) Just because the link is FoxNews does not make it an unreliable link, the NUMBERS come from elsewhere.

On the other hand, if Huffington Post is quoting a far Left Blogger who is the ONLY source of the material or is misrepresenting the material, then we should dispute that.

At least thats my opinion.

 

[Foxfyre]

You can qualify your own statements by simply saying, " Its seems to me" or "In my opinion"

But if you post something like 50% of all dogs are yellow labs...Im going to need to see a citation.

See the difference?

Of course, but in the world of political posting, regardless of the assertion, there will be those who will deny any source provided, so I don't bother.

However, I DO demand that assertions of a slanderous nature against someone made by a public official demands that the proof of the assertion is provided, or that person should be subjected to civil penalties, possibly even removal from office.

Heres the thing.

Lets say FoxNews posts a stat from the CBO. ( because we all like to use the CBO as an example lately ) Just because the link is FoxNews does not make it an unreliable link, the NUMBERS come from elsewhere.

On the other hand, if Huffington Post is quoting a far Left Blogger who is the ONLY source of the material or is misrepresenting the material, then we should dispute that.

At least thats my opinion.

Good analogy. I frequently quote from Huffpo, even though I am much futher right than they are editorially, because I felt their source was a reliable source. And Huffpo gets a lot of stuff right.

And I confess to avoiding using Fox as a source as much as possible just because I kknow some will focus on the source regardless of who their source is or how competent the reporting.

But I will object to leftwing or rightwing hate sites or highly biased propaganda site as reliable sources every single time.