Nice deflection from a conversation about source quality to a nebulous means nothing topic based on vapor?<quoted text>
I have asked you this several times. What IF you are wrong? Just as I can't say that I am 100% correct, you can't say that you are 100% correct. As I have said, If I am wrong, it's going to be great. If you are wrong....
So, what IF you are wrong? Have you even considered that possibility?
What if YOU are wrong? Then we'd have a country where the economy tanked, rampant unemployment happened, deficits mount while the unregulated corporations and rich made insane profits, everybody else got kicked out of their house, and Wall Street went home with cardboard boxes under their arms. The middle-class disappearing with a declining standard of living. So - WHAT IF YOU ARE WRONG!
Oh! You were wrong. And all that happened. And you just kept on begging for the country to continue to support the failed policies that let to all that. You were wrong. And you didn't learn from it.
So back on topic: Are all sources equal? Does Alex Jones' unsupported opinion deserve the same weight as peer-reviewed scientific studies by MIT?
You know it doesn't! So let's not play that game that you keep trying where you complain that we believe our sources are right and your sources are wrong. It's not the person that presents the source the validates it, it's the respectability of the source itself that matters.
And Alex Jones ain't it.