well, maybe instead of thinking that it's not factually correct because of the way it is written.. if that is the case fox news is no better... shouldn't the fact of the offices he held matter some. And the facts behind it? Why and since when has, 'because it looks like prison planet' been a good excuse to discredit someone?


I looked at his site and from what I could tell it was all pretty well defended and back up with references and he backed up his claims pretty well... why is it ok for him to do that, yet be discredited??

I guess what I'm trying to ask is what is your oponion of a good arguement if the end result does not match the one in your head?