re: Apocalypse Now, Hunter, & Wick
Let's see how this works.
Group 1 makes assertion.
Group 2 wants Group 1 to provide citations to back up their refutation of Group 2's assertions..
Group 2 Not happy with "look it up", says you gotta provide proof.
Without proof on either side, it's all just pissing in the wind. However:
I get sick of the whole argument re: the 2000 elections. It is a classic ideological attack to make unsupported assertions, and demand the other side defend its assertions while not holding themselves to that same standard. Logic and reason have nothing to do with this pretended attempt to be reasonable -- if people were so interested in being reasonable, the minimal bother in looking up sources would have already been made. In addition, you're dead on that any of these sources would be ignored based upon ideological constraints.
I have met religious zealots that use the same attack mode. The more you try to defend yourself, the more assertions are made, eventually making the assertion that you must be guilty because you spend so much time defending yourself.
Personally, every time I meet a person that pushes those assertions, I figure they are another person so absorbed in their ideology that they really don't have a personal opinion that matters anyway, and in a just world would be dipping potatoes in hot oil for the rest of their natural life while railing at an "unfair" system that doesn't kiss their a3 while stuffing money in their pockets.
The whole 2000 election was an exercise in partisan BS, and unfortunately the side that lost is still in love with their own view of events, and used it for the past 8 years to do their best to unstabilize the country. There is no way that they can take on any other view -- any source of information that refutes that is going to get ridiculed and ignored rather than examined and verified. When they live in their own ideological scat, I guess everything looks brown.
AC -- I am still at work.