Richard S. wrote:Why should I beleive this is true?
Believe WHAT is true?
1. That the document itself is genuine?
2. It accurately discloses the exact
words that were allegedly spoken?
a. Will/can the speaker verify that those were indeed his words?
b. Who reported it?
c. Who transcribed it?
d. How can we be sure it hasn't been altered to change it's intent?
Just remember Ronald Reagan's famous admonition: "Trust....but verify!"
Based on these tests and considering our purposes in this forum, why wouldn't media accounts and government references, for the most part suffice? Do they not verify
While I rail against the liberal press, their bias is revealed more in what they don't say about a subject than what they do say. What they do say is reliably a fact for most intents and purposes. Their business is to journalize facts. My contention is that they don't journalize those favorable to Republicans as much as those detrimental to Republicans.
Fact recording is also the business of government agencies and I believe that for most intents and purposes they can also be trusted.
Don't let years of law enforcement cynicism cloud your civilian judgement. Not everyone is a liar. As a retailer, I have to remind myself from time to time that not everyone is a thief!