- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,672
- Reaction score
- 35,456
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I am not saying their source is not respectable, nor the information bad.
I am saying that telling someone they haven't read the Patriot Act because ONE source, with an obvious Agenda, disagree's with some of their assertions:
1) doesn't prove they haven't read the act
2) doesn't refute the persons original comment that the poster in question is not knowledgeable about the act.
Its not that the source is bad, its the presentation of it being some sort of all knowing, end all be all source of what the Patriot act is. Check out research done and published in actual political science journals rather than by advocacy groups, such as in Government Information Quarterly. Or various law review journals. Look at testimony by politicians involved in it like Orin Hatch or Bob Barr. Check out AEI if you want a more conservative view point on it, or the Justice Departments statements on it if you want a view from the government itself. Perhaps academic professor presentations and works, such as Maura Conway report on cyber terrorism and the steps to fight back against it presented at Oxford.
Its not that the ACLU is a bad source, its that its a single source, and to quote a single source as the end all be all of something is as fool hearty as the previous person making an out and out claim about people not knowing what was in the act as well.
There's nothing wrong with getting all your info from one source, but don't presume to be somehow so much better informed than someone else who only seeks their information from a singular source and believes it to be the end all of the issue.
I am saying that telling someone they haven't read the Patriot Act because ONE source, with an obvious Agenda, disagree's with some of their assertions:
1) doesn't prove they haven't read the act
2) doesn't refute the persons original comment that the poster in question is not knowledgeable about the act.
Its not that the source is bad, its the presentation of it being some sort of all knowing, end all be all source of what the Patriot act is. Check out research done and published in actual political science journals rather than by advocacy groups, such as in Government Information Quarterly. Or various law review journals. Look at testimony by politicians involved in it like Orin Hatch or Bob Barr. Check out AEI if you want a more conservative view point on it, or the Justice Departments statements on it if you want a view from the government itself. Perhaps academic professor presentations and works, such as Maura Conway report on cyber terrorism and the steps to fight back against it presented at Oxford.
Its not that the ACLU is a bad source, its that its a single source, and to quote a single source as the end all be all of something is as fool hearty as the previous person making an out and out claim about people not knowing what was in the act as well.
There's nothing wrong with getting all your info from one source, but don't presume to be somehow so much better informed than someone else who only seeks their information from a singular source and believes it to be the end all of the issue.