I have a small request

[Jolene]

I am still undecided. As I'm wading through this sea of 'neener neener,' about why one candidate is slime but the other rides a white steed, it would be nice if the articles relied upon for the smear portion of the argument included more than one-word quotes/quotes with elipses ( . . . ) in them, denoting that text has been removed.

You see, one-word quotes don't tell me jack. They only tell me that the person speaking said that one word. Likewise, portions of quotes which have replaced removed text with elipses are something I learned to avoid a long time ago, when I found that republicans like to use them to outright lie through their teeth. (Not pointing fingers here, just explaining my objection to the practice.)

Preach on, but do bear in mind that there are voters who are undecided and offering the aforementioned as 'proof' to someone who knows better only sours me to your candidate.

Thank you in advance, for your kind consideration.

[sandnsea]

1. Then google it up

Sorry, you get no sympathy from me at all. Usually the link is available, and if not it's easy enough to put some of it in google in parenthesis and see the context yourself. Do your own research and make your own decisions. Find the words of the candidate, the actual votes, the actual arguments surrounding the votes, and figure it out. To me, that's what an informed voter is supposed to do.

[Jolene]

2. May I ask

Who your candidate is?

[sandnsea]

11. It's not really relevant

I've seen alot of people go around the bend over a statement when it could be totally clarified if they had just clicked the link and read the article. And I am usually more than happy to answer any question about anybody, provide links and all of that. But if a candidate says something and that's the point of a post, then it only makes sense to me for a person to put up the words, along with a link. Some people take things out of context, some don't. If you want to argue it, go find out the truth and come back. Again, that's how a person becomes an informed voter. That's just the way I see it.

[Dookus]

3. well....

I think some people come here specifically to learn more. If you Google "Democratic" this site turns up. And it's good that people come here.

Jolene... ask away. Most people here will be happy to direct you to good information as long as you're sincere in your search.

Welcome to DU.

[QC]

4. Sorry to be pedantic, but

it's up to the person making an assertion to provide evidence for it.

If we just make assertions and expect others to do our research for us, that's known as "shifting the burden of proof," a pretty serious logical fallacy.

[sandnsea]

9. Not really

If a person provides a quote that they think is relevant to their position, it them becomes the other person's responsiblity to disprove the claim. This is not the same thing as just making assertions. And I also said links are usually provided when people put up quotes. It's amazing to me the number of people who clearly don't bother to click the link and just spout off without reading an entire article. I'm not saying that's the case with the original poster, don't know her. But it happens. And I am also not responsible for doing her research on the candidates for her. And to ask people to stop quoting candidates just makes no sense. I disagree with it altogether, doesn't matter what candidate it is.

[QC]

15. Please see #10.

[sandnsea]

16. Please see #1

"Usually the link is available, and if not it's easy enough to put some of it in google in parenthesis and see the context yourself. Do your own research and make your own decisions."

[eileen from OH]

5. I dunno what to say. . .

Don't think anyone can supply all that you want. Respectfully, if you don't want anyone to give a pitch for "their" candidate in a soundbite or quote, you need to do your own homework and examine each one's positions. Quite frankly, while I see it as my "job" to promote my candidate, it's YOUR job to find a lot of this stuff out for yourself and weigh what's important and what's not, what you agree with and what you don't.

All the candidates have websites. I support Dean whose website is www.deanforamerica.com.

Don't really mean to sound, well, er. .mean. But it's impossible to condense and dilute a candidate's positions into a posting-sized format. Ya really outta just take the time to read what the candidates have to say, rather than the interpretation of what they say as presented on DU.

eileen from OH

[Jolene]

8. I have no problems with cheerleaders

I just don't think we should do Rove's work for him. I'm sorry, but that's how I feel about it when I see democrats relying on a very republican media when they're picking apart each other's candidates.

I made a simple request, it fell on deaf ears. I'm used to that, so no problem.

Have you read the Daily Brew, lately?

http://thedailybrew.com

The White House Plumbers at the Weekly Standard is really interesting. It's perhaps a long read, but well worth the time, IMO.

Meanwhile, I'll stop relying on this site for accurate information. It appears as if the wrong feet are being held to the fire, and quite frankly, it takes too much of my time to double-check the veracity of articles with one-word quotes in them.

Thanks again.

[Matilda]

6. I have a small request

It's interesting to check their voting record if they're a senator or a congressman. I noticed this week that on two major votes in the Senate (on beefing up nuclear power and revoking the FCC recommendations) Kerry, Edwards and Graham abstained from voting, and I think that's a worry, because both of these issues are very regressive. So check to see if the candidates' actions match their words.

[deek]

7. Go to DU homepage

There is a list of links to each candidate there.

[phegger]

10. I believe what Jolene is saying...

...is that quotes with bits cut out/off do not give good context for what the quote is supposed to be an example of.

If I have any confusion about what people have quoted, I usually go to the source. Most people provide links to those.


-ph :smoke:

[QC]

13. DING DING DING!!! We have a winner!

[TreasonousBastard]

12. I feel your pain, but...

part of the problem is vast information overload. Another part is the little issue of copyright, and the inadvisability of posting entire articles.

I come here for information, and appreciate a lot of what I get out of here. There's a lot of good stuff here, possibly more than any other single place I go.

But, as in any medium, part of gaining any knowledge is considering the source. Eventually, you get a feel for who here is reliable. And then you realize that they are not always reliable on every subject. Some people are pretty obviously advocates, others are researchers and reporters. And some are just plain full of shit. Just like anyplace else.

Unfortunately, it is up to each of us to verify for ourselves pretty much everything we see here. Or anywhere else.

[Terwilliger]

14. Dennis J. Kucinich

http://www.progressive.org/kuc899.htm