Hey Knoblauch,
I have a serious question for you, to which I hope you will give a serious thoughtful answer. Note: this is not an attack on you, but rather a true desire on my part for information.
My question is: when you make a post like the one above, do you base the reason for making your arguments on any kind of objective evidence or is this just a matter of us having to assume what you say is correct because you say so?
So using the example above, I stated something that goes against conventional wisdom: I said that WSJ in spite of all of its anti-Obama and anti-government bluster inevitably follows the same line as the government. To bolster my point I used the evidence of the op/ed Camberiu posted. (As just one piece of evidence; there are countless more examples we could delve into if you wish.)
Your rebuttal was essentially: no the WSJ is anti-US government/Obama. Full stop.
So, should we have any other reason to believe what you say other than just faith in you? When you read the thread above, did you formulate objections based on facts that you know to be true? Or are the short arguments you so often give just articles of faith that we need to believe in spite of evidence to the contrary?
I ask these questions not to attack you, but rather in the hopes of improving the quality of debate, since it seems like you have a lot of positive things to contribute, but sometimes the ex-cathedra nature of your responses can be quite frustrating.
Best,
Ed
