Reply #14: What you're saying is that, from your experience, the people

[Mythsaje]

who are most avidly supporting Clinton over other candidates are getting their information from the corporate media and from books. The only way they could have "known" there were no WMDs through the corporate media was by reading between the lines and making assumptions...generally. A LOT of us knew that, and we were out here sharing information about it WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING. We had quotes from different sources, we had information regarding Saddam's previous use of WMDs, information as to the origins of those WMDs, statements from people such as Scott Ritter, Hans Blix, and Joe Wilson, among others.

These people, at the time, had...what? They based their opinions upon what information? There weren't any books about the subject out at the time. The corporate media was pounding the war drums and NOT giving out any information regarding the veracity of the administration's claims.

For some reason this has your back up, but the fact remains that WE have multiple sources of information and, because of this, are usually aware of what's going on weeks, if not months, before it ever even hits the mainstream press. If it ever really does. And let's not even get into how long it takes for some of this information to hit the bookshelves.

Are you really arguing that someone who gets their current information from the corporate media is in any way as knowledgable about some of this stuff as those of us who are out here digging for information that isn't available through corporate outlets every single day?

That's absurd.

Not only that, but we have access to insights that simply aren't available to those who aren't on-line. Not only those of commentators from every major newspaper in the U.S. and across the world (though we're generally restricted to those either published in English or translated FOR us), but the observations of conscientious and insightful members of the New Media as well. We see analysis that they will NEVER see. We argue the issues with other people and, over time, adapt our view based upon what we're learning on a daily basis. At least, some of us do.


I realize you don't like what I'm saying here, but I'm not sure how you can deny it without resorting to personal attacks that do nothing to strengthen your position. Of course we're more informed. We have access to information they do not, and have the opportunity to debate with others who are equally well informed on different matters.

Even here we're prone to differences of opinion on various matters. Having access to more information doesn't necessarily mean we're always correct in our stances. Any of us can be mistaken in our assumptions, no matter HOW much information we have.

That's one of the reasons SOME of us are out here...to see if there's information available that might modify the way we look at things.