You are mistaken. Some opinions can be much, MUCH more unbiased when compared to others. The relatively unbiased opinions are those which are substantiated. (there’s that inconvenient issue of substantiation again!) It is the relatively unbiased opinions – the ones which are substantiated by facts – which are more believable than the claims some ask others to accept as true - but without proof.


Given the facts – I assume here that you are willing to accept the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, etc. reports as factual (and if not, you would, of course, need to substantiate your decision to dismiss the reports as non-factual) – would you agree that someone who is carrying around that amount of ethical baggage should have his – or her – claims scrutinized a bit more carefully than someone who did NOT have an involvement with Afghanistan and the Taliban during which he reversed his stated positions and may also have violated federal law, and who did NOT have these possible ethics violations, and his distinctly right wing positions?

Perhaps you (and others) think I am being unreasonable in being a mite skeptical about the accusations made by people with a documented background like this. I have a rather different take on the subject: how in the world can you accept at face value (which you certainly SEEM to do) unsubstantiated claims made by that people like this? Surely you can do better than this! wyndhy suggested the a possible source – perhaps you could start there.

Oh, and by the way, the claim that I “demanded that I back up this assertion with hard numbers” is false. I did not make such a demand. What I did post, and what you did post may be found by clicking here.

You will note that I made no demands of you. I did point out there what I have pointed out here: if you wish people to accept your claims on faith, that is up to you.

__________________
Eudaimonia