My point?
One should have facts before rendering judgment.
Original documents are preferable to getting information from commentary. Especially, when those providing commentary and interpretation have a stake in the issue.
I guess personal experience doesn't count as fact in your mind, eh?
Stories about people being abused by the system by authorities based on nothing but suspicions have no relevance to you, huh? It's all got to be in print, by way of a link for you to read so that you can ignore it all and claim that it's biased because the story is from a blog/source that doesn't align with your ideologies, right? So sorry if my life isn't some huge book that you can research like a Wikipedia reference. I would expect my adversaries to display a certain level of everyday understanding and common sense before engaging into a debate with me. We know police abuse their authority. You don't need a link to prove that. It happens all the time, and it's likely to happen in Arizona (if not more) with the current legislation
regardless of how its worded. Let's not play naive here, unless you prefer to continually assimilate yourself with this disingenuous, argumentative stance.
So what should I assume since you did not answer my question in your two paragraphs?
You shouldn't assume anything and take whatever is said at face value. Only a fool denies knowledge if it's not propagated in the way you prefer. Of course, since you have already associated anything I say to either be too partisan or too "liberal" to begin with, you'll never take anything I say with any relevance. I go into any debate with you knowing this, which is why I interject much of my statements with things that any adult should know only to watch you brush it aside like it isn't true while trying to make some claim that I'm missing your fruitless, rhetorical point.
And you fall for it every single time.
Also, getting bent out of shape because I type a lot? How infantile of a gripe. If you, as an adult, cannot read two paragraphs without keeling over in boredom then that's your problem. I tend to be thorough. You like to diverge in simplistic answers that don't explain the whole story and leads to prejudicial speculation.
A yes or no would suffice.
No it wouldn't... you're gonna believe what you want anyhow so why bother?
