Pelosi Says Her Policies Guided by the Values of Jesus

[East of Eden]

http://cnsnews.com/cnsnewstv/v/XdqGnzIrSU

How come nobody is upset about this?

[Goat]

He tried to, but the republicans were such a party of NO, they were going to kick holler and scream at anything. They were the party of 'no compromise' and 'object to everything'.

We had a monologue, not a dialogue. Obama admitted this when he said:

“What I’ve been doing is consulting closely with leaders in the House and the leaders in the Senate on the Democratic side, and what I want to do is consult closely with our Republican colleagues.�

The ironic thing is the bill that was passed was pretty much what a number of Republicans did in their home states, and also what the heritage foundation (a republican think tank) suggested in place of of what Clinton proposed in the early 90's. They pushed that concept until it was actually in congress proposed by a democrate.

You mean what Romney passed? That's a failure.

Really?? he called that his biggest accomplishment when he was running for President.

Of course he did. So what?

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/ ... 0n1-1.html

The Cato institute is not what I consider an unbiased source, and frankly, I wouldn't trust a damn thing they said about anything, even when I agree with their position.

[chris_brown207]

He tried to, but the republicans were such a party of NO, they were going to kick holler and scream at anything. They were the party of 'no compromise' and 'object to everything'.

We had a monologue, not a dialogue. Obama admitted this when he said:

“What I’ve been doing is consulting closely with leaders in the House and the leaders in the Senate on the Democratic side, and what I want to do is consult closely with our Republican colleagues.�

The ironic thing is the bill that was passed was pretty much what a number of Republicans did in their home states, and also what the heritage foundation (a republican think tank) suggested in place of of what Clinton proposed in the early 90's. They pushed that concept until it was actually in congress proposed by a democrate.

You mean what Romney passed? That's a failure.

Really?? he called that his biggest accomplishment when he was running for President.

Of course he did. So what?

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/ ... 0n1-1.html

The Cato institute is not what I consider an unbiased source, and frankly, I wouldn't trust a damn thing they said about anything, even when I agree with their position.

The Cato Institute is an overtly biased organization. They state this in their mission statement:

"The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace. The Institute will use the most effective means to originate, advocate, promote, and disseminate applicable policy proposals that create free, open, and civil societies in the United States and throughout the world."

If they left their mission simply at "understanding of public policies", they could possibly then be considered an unbiased source and reliable source of unfiltered, unbiased information.

If EoE were truly seeking to increase knowledge, instead of just furthering an agenda, he would probably spend more time seeking unbiased sources of information (and thus incidentally bring something of value to the debate).

[East of Eden]

He tried to, but the republicans were such a party of NO, they were going to kick holler and scream at anything. They were the party of 'no compromise' and 'object to everything'.

We had a monologue, not a dialogue. Obama admitted this when he said:

“What I’ve been doing is consulting closely with leaders in the House and the leaders in the Senate on the Democratic side, and what I want to do is consult closely with our Republican colleagues.�

The ironic thing is the bill that was passed was pretty much what a number of Republicans did in their home states, and also what the heritage foundation (a republican think tank) suggested in place of of what Clinton proposed in the early 90's. They pushed that concept until it was actually in congress proposed by a democrate.

You mean what Romney passed? That's a failure.

Really?? he called that his biggest accomplishment when he was running for President.

Of course he did. So what?

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/ ... 0n1-1.html

The Cato institute is not what I consider an unbiased source, and frankly, I wouldn't trust a damn thing they said about anything, even when I agree with their position.

This is a debate site. I know it's easier to just do an ad hominem against Cato and not read the article but what facts in it do you disagree with?

[East of Eden]

He tried to, but the republicans were such a party of NO, they were going to kick holler and scream at anything. They were the party of 'no compromise' and 'object to everything'.

We had a monologue, not a dialogue. Obama admitted this when he said:

“What I’ve been doing is consulting closely with leaders in the House and the leaders in the Senate on the Democratic side, and what I want to do is consult closely with our Republican colleagues.�

The ironic thing is the bill that was passed was pretty much what a number of Republicans did in their home states, and also what the heritage foundation (a republican think tank) suggested in place of of what Clinton proposed in the early 90's. They pushed that concept until it was actually in congress proposed by a democrate.

You mean what Romney passed? That's a failure.

Really?? he called that his biggest accomplishment when he was running for President.

Of course he did. So what?

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/ ... 0n1-1.html

The Cato institute is not what I consider an unbiased source, and frankly, I wouldn't trust a damn thing they said about anything, even when I agree with their position.

The Cato Institute is an overtly biased organization. They state this in their mission statement:

"The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace. The Institute will use the most effective means to originate, advocate, promote, and disseminate applicable policy proposals that create free, open, and civil societies in the United States and throughout the world."

If they left their mission simply at "understanding of public policies", they could possibly then be considered an unbiased source and reliable source of unfiltered, unbiased information.

If EoE were truly seeking to increase knowledge, instead of just furthering an agenda, he would probably spend more time seeking unbiased sources of information (and thus incidentally bring something of value to the debate).

My answer in post 43 applies to you too.



"The Cato Institute is non-partisan, and its scholars' views are not consistently aligned with either major political party. For example, Cato scholars were sharply critical of George W. Bush's administration (2001–2009) on a wide variety of issues, including the Iraq War, civil liberties, education, agriculture, energy policy, and excessive government spending. However, on other issues, most notably health care[1] Social Security,[2][3] global warming,[4] tax policy,[5] and immigration,[6][7][8][9][10] Cato scholars had praised Bush administration initiatives. During the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Cato scholars criticized both major-party candidates, John McCain[11][12] and Barack Obama.[13][14]

The Cato Institute is named the fifth most influential think tank in the world in a study by the University of Pennsylvania in 2010.[15] The same research named Cato the world's "top think tank for innovative ideas" in 2009.[16]"

Wikipedia


Don't tell me they aren't a legitimate source to bring into a debate just because you don't like the facts they reveal.

[Goat]

He tried to, but the republicans were such a party of NO, they were going to kick holler and scream at anything. They were the party of 'no compromise' and 'object to everything'.

We had a monologue, not a dialogue. Obama admitted this when he said:

“What I’ve been doing is consulting closely with leaders in the House and the leaders in the Senate on the Democratic side, and what I want to do is consult closely with our Republican colleagues.�

The ironic thing is the bill that was passed was pretty much what a number of Republicans did in their home states, and also what the heritage foundation (a republican think tank) suggested in place of of what Clinton proposed in the early 90's. They pushed that concept until it was actually in congress proposed by a democrate.

You mean what Romney passed? That's a failure.

Really?? he called that his biggest accomplishment when he was running for President.

Of course he did. So what?

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/ ... 0n1-1.html

The Cato institute is not what I consider an unbiased source, and frankly, I wouldn't trust a damn thing they said about anything, even when I agree with their position.

This is a debate site. I know it's easier to just do an ad hominem against Cato and not read the article but what facts in it do you disagree with?

The fact that they consider it failed, because of their a prior assumptions. If you read their mission statement, they would be against that from the start, and would consider any implementation of it a failure, because it does not meet their philosophy.

Considering their mission statement, I would not trust them to properly anaylize anything... even if I would agree with them.

[chris_brown207]

He tried to, but the republicans were such a party of NO, they were going to kick holler and scream at anything. They were the party of 'no compromise' and 'object to everything'.

We had a monologue, not a dialogue. Obama admitted this when he said:

“What I’ve been doing is consulting closely with leaders in the House and the leaders in the Senate on the Democratic side, and what I want to do is consult closely with our Republican colleagues.�

The ironic thing is the bill that was passed was pretty much what a number of Republicans did in their home states, and also what the heritage foundation (a republican think tank) suggested in place of of what Clinton proposed in the early 90's. They pushed that concept until it was actually in congress proposed by a democrate.

You mean what Romney passed? That's a failure.

Really?? he called that his biggest accomplishment when he was running for President.

Of course he did. So what?

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/ ... 0n1-1.html

The Cato institute is not what I consider an unbiased source, and frankly, I wouldn't trust a damn thing they said about anything, even when I agree with their position.

The Cato Institute is an overtly biased organization. They state this in their mission statement:

"The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace. The Institute will use the most effective means to originate, advocate, promote, and disseminate applicable policy proposals that create free, open, and civil societies in the United States and throughout the world."

If they left their mission simply at "understanding of public policies", they could possibly then be considered an unbiased source and reliable source of unfiltered, unbiased information.

If EoE were truly seeking to increase knowledge, instead of just furthering an agenda, he would probably spend more time seeking unbiased sources of information (and thus incidentally bring something of value to the debate).

My answer in post 43 applies to you too.



"The Cato Institute is non-partisan, and its scholars' views are not consistently aligned with either major political party. For example, Cato scholars were sharply critical of George W. Bush's administration (2001–2009) on a wide variety of issues, including the Iraq War, civil liberties, education, agriculture, energy policy, and excessive government spending. However, on other issues, most notably health care[1] Social Security,[2][3] global warming,[4] tax policy,[5] and immigration,[6][7][8][9][10] Cato scholars had praised Bush administration initiatives. During the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Cato scholars criticized both major-party candidates, John McCain[11][12] and Barack Obama.[13][14]

The Cato Institute is named the fifth most influential think tank in the world in a study by the University of Pennsylvania in 2010.[15] The same research named Cato the world's "top think tank for innovative ideas" in 2009.[16]"

Wikipedia


Don't tell me they aren't a legitimate source to bring into a debate just because you don't like the facts they reveal.

Again, reread their mission statement. Their mission is to look at policy through the prism of "limited government, free markets, individual liberty".

You have already made your stand against abortion well known... would you listen to a think tank that had "pro-abortion" in their mission statement, no matter how many awards and accolades they received?

The answer I am betting is no... because they are biased from the get go. And while, I have no personal problem with the Cato Institute, what I have a problem with is trying to sell them as an unbiased source.

It is funny that the sources I have seen you quote have all been biased, and have an inherent conflict of interest.

Again, if you were interested in increasing knowledge, and not just furthering an agenda, you would probably seek out more middle field sources... and your posts would be more appreciated.

[East of Eden]

He tried to, but the republicans were such a party of NO, they were going to kick holler and scream at anything. They were the party of 'no compromise' and 'object to everything'.

We had a monologue, not a dialogue. Obama admitted this when he said:

“What I’ve been doing is consulting closely with leaders in the House and the leaders in the Senate on the Democratic side, and what I want to do is consult closely with our Republican colleagues.�

The ironic thing is the bill that was passed was pretty much what a number of Republicans did in their home states, and also what the heritage foundation (a republican think tank) suggested in place of of what Clinton proposed in the early 90's. They pushed that concept until it was actually in congress proposed by a democrate.

You mean what Romney passed? That's a failure.

Really?? he called that his biggest accomplishment when he was running for President.

Of course he did. So what?

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/ ... 0n1-1.html

The Cato institute is not what I consider an unbiased source, and frankly, I wouldn't trust a damn thing they said about anything, even when I agree with their position.

This is a debate site. I know it's easier to just do an ad hominem against Cato and not read the article but what facts in it do you disagree with?

The fact that they consider it failed, because of their a prior assumptions. If you read their mission statement, they would be against that from the start, and would consider any implementation of it a failure, because it does not meet their philosophy.

Considering their mission statement, I would not trust them to properly anaylize anything... even if I would agree with them.

Are you going to answer my question of which part of the Cato article you disagree with?

Is there such a thing as an unbiased source? Wikipedia comes close, and they say Cato is non-partisan and not aligned with either party.

[East of Eden]

He tried to, but the republicans were such a party of NO, they were going to kick holler and scream at anything. They were the party of 'no compromise' and 'object to everything'.

We had a monologue, not a dialogue. Obama admitted this when he said:

“What I’ve been doing is consulting closely with leaders in the House and the leaders in the Senate on the Democratic side, and what I want to do is consult closely with our Republican colleagues.�

The ironic thing is the bill that was passed was pretty much what a number of Republicans did in their home states, and also what the heritage foundation (a republican think tank) suggested in place of of what Clinton proposed in the early 90's. They pushed that concept until it was actually in congress proposed by a democrate.

You mean what Romney passed? That's a failure.

Really?? he called that his biggest accomplishment when he was running for President.

Of course he did. So what?

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/ ... 0n1-1.html

The Cato institute is not what I consider an unbiased source, and frankly, I wouldn't trust a damn thing they said about anything, even when I agree with their position.

The Cato Institute is an overtly biased organization. They state this in their mission statement:

"The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace. The Institute will use the most effective means to originate, advocate, promote, and disseminate applicable policy proposals that create free, open, and civil societies in the United States and throughout the world."

If they left their mission simply at "understanding of public policies", they could possibly then be considered an unbiased source and reliable source of unfiltered, unbiased information.

If EoE were truly seeking to increase knowledge, instead of just furthering an agenda, he would probably spend more time seeking unbiased sources of information (and thus incidentally bring something of value to the debate).

My answer in post 43 applies to you too.



"The Cato Institute is non-partisan, and its scholars' views are not consistently aligned with either major political party. For example, Cato scholars were sharply critical of George W. Bush's administration (2001–2009) on a wide variety of issues, including the Iraq War, civil liberties, education, agriculture, energy policy, and excessive government spending. However, on other issues, most notably health care[1] Social Security,[2][3] global warming,[4] tax policy,[5] and immigration,[6][7][8][9][10] Cato scholars had praised Bush administration initiatives. During the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Cato scholars criticized both major-party candidates, John McCain[11][12] and Barack Obama.[13][14]

The Cato Institute is named the fifth most influential think tank in the world in a study by the University of Pennsylvania in 2010.[15] The same research named Cato the world's "top think tank for innovative ideas" in 2009.[16]"

Wikipedia


Don't tell me they aren't a legitimate source to bring into a debate just because you don't like the facts they reveal.

Again, reread their mission statement. Their mission is to look at policy through the prism of "limited government, free markets, individual liberty".

You have already made your stand against abortion well known... would you listen to a think tank that had "pro-abortion" in their mission statement, no matter how many awards and accolades they received?

I would look at the facts they present, and if I had an issue with the facts I would counter them with true facts. I wouldn't a priori dismiss (not even read?) it because they're not coming from my viewpoint as you routinely do. That would be like saying I'm never going to listen to anything Obama says because he's biased and has an agenda.

The answer I am betting is no... because they are biased from the get go. And while, I have no personal problem with the Cato Institute, what I have a problem with is trying to sell them as an unbiased source.

I never said they didn't have a bias towards economic freedom. That doesn't mean they can't evaluate the results vs. the promises of Romneycare, or make predictions of the effects of Obamacare based on Romney's similar experience.

It is funny that the sources I have seen you quote have all been biased, and have an inherent conflict of interest.

You tried that argument with Prof. John Lott on the gun argument. Did you ever stop to think that maybe he holds his views because he in an open-minded manner investigaged the gun controversy, where the facts led him to his views?

Again, if you were interested in increasing knowledge, and not just furthering an agenda, you would probably seek out more middle field sources... and your posts would be more appreciated.

Here's a tip: Most people here have an agenda. IMHO increasing knowledge advances mine. If you don't appreciate my posts you could always not read them.

[chris_brown207]

He tried to, but the republicans were such a party of NO, they were going to kick holler and scream at anything. They were the party of 'no compromise' and 'object to everything'.

We had a monologue, not a dialogue. Obama admitted this when he said:

“What I’ve been doing is consulting closely with leaders in the House and the leaders in the Senate on the Democratic side, and what I want to do is consult closely with our Republican colleagues.�

The ironic thing is the bill that was passed was pretty much what a number of Republicans did in their home states, and also what the heritage foundation (a republican think tank) suggested in place of of what Clinton proposed in the early 90's. They pushed that concept until it was actually in congress proposed by a democrate.

You mean what Romney passed? That's a failure.

Really?? he called that his biggest accomplishment when he was running for President.

Of course he did. So what?

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/ ... 0n1-1.html

The Cato institute is not what I consider an unbiased source, and frankly, I wouldn't trust a damn thing they said about anything, even when I agree with their position.

The Cato Institute is an overtly biased organization. They state this in their mission statement:

"The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace. The Institute will use the most effective means to originate, advocate, promote, and disseminate applicable policy proposals that create free, open, and civil societies in the United States and throughout the world."

If they left their mission simply at "understanding of public policies", they could possibly then be considered an unbiased source and reliable source of unfiltered, unbiased information.

If EoE were truly seeking to increase knowledge, instead of just furthering an agenda, he would probably spend more time seeking unbiased sources of information (and thus incidentally bring something of value to the debate).

My answer in post 43 applies to you too.



"The Cato Institute is non-partisan, and its scholars' views are not consistently aligned with either major political party. For example, Cato scholars were sharply critical of George W. Bush's administration (2001–2009) on a wide variety of issues, including the Iraq War, civil liberties, education, agriculture, energy policy, and excessive government spending. However, on other issues, most notably health care[1] Social Security,[2][3] global warming,[4] tax policy,[5] and immigration,[6][7][8][9][10] Cato scholars had praised Bush administration initiatives. During the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Cato scholars criticized both major-party candidates, John McCain[11][12] and Barack Obama.[13][14]

The Cato Institute is named the fifth most influential think tank in the world in a study by the University of Pennsylvania in 2010.[15] The same research named Cato the world's "top think tank for innovative ideas" in 2009.[16]"

Wikipedia


Don't tell me they aren't a legitimate source to bring into a debate just because you don't like the facts they reveal.

Again, reread their mission statement. Their mission is to look at policy through the prism of "limited government, free markets, individual liberty".

You have already made your stand against abortion well known... would you listen to a think tank that had "pro-abortion" in their mission statement, no matter how many awards and accolades they received?

I would look at the facts they present, and if I had an issue with the facts I would counter them with true facts. I wouldn't a priori dismiss (not even read?) it because they're not coming from my viewpoint as you routinely do. That would be like saying I'm never going to listen to anything Obama says because he's biased and has an agenda.

The answer I am betting is no... because they are biased from the get go. And while, I have no personal problem with the Cato Institute, what I have a problem with is trying to sell them as an unbiased source.

I never said they didn't have a bias towards economic freedom. That doesn't mean they can't evaluate the results vs. the promises of Romneycare, or make predictions of the effects of Obamacare based on Romney's similar experience.

It is funny that the sources I have seen you quote have all been biased, and have an inherent conflict of interest.

You tried that argument with Prof. John Lott on the gun argument. Did you ever stop to think that maybe he holds his views because he in an open-minded manner investigaged the gun controversy, where the facts led him to his views?

Again, if you were interested in increasing knowledge, and not just furthering an agenda, you would probably seek out more middle field sources... and your posts would be more appreciated.

Here's a tip: Most people here have an agenda. IMHO increasing knowledge advances mine. If you don't appreciate my posts you could always not read them.

The original point of posting your Cato link was to say that Romney's health care was a failure... which who really cares if it was a failure or not. You made that statement to sidestep the fact that you were bashing the current administrations health care policy which is almost a carbon copy of the health care policies that were pushed by previous republican administrations (Romney's included).

We take your source with a grain of salt for good reason. It is hard for me to hear you criticize our skepticism at such an overtly biased source after you have taken multiple upon multiple other sources (without regard to the level of bias or lack thereof) and reject them outright (I would be willing to bet without even having opened them) because they don't coincide with your viewpoint.

I meant to say that we would appreciate your posts more, if we gained insight from them. I don't have to agree with a poster to not respect their views. I find it hard to respect the views of someone who has blinders on for anything that does not coincide with his/her viewpoint. I have a great time debating with other posters on here, because at least I feel they are willing to look at other possibilities - even if they present very good points about why they think it wouldn't work.

If you don't want someone criticizing your point of view, may I suggest another venue perhaps?

[East of Eden]

He tried to, but the republicans were such a party of NO, they were going to kick holler and scream at anything. They were the party of 'no compromise' and 'object to everything'.

We had a monologue, not a dialogue. Obama admitted this when he said:

“What I’ve been doing is consulting closely with leaders in the House and the leaders in the Senate on the Democratic side, and what I want to do is consult closely with our Republican colleagues.�

The ironic thing is the bill that was passed was pretty much what a number of Republicans did in their home states, and also what the heritage foundation (a republican think tank) suggested in place of of what Clinton proposed in the early 90's. They pushed that concept until it was actually in congress proposed by a democrate.

You mean what Romney passed? That's a failure.

Really?? he called that his biggest accomplishment when he was running for President.

Of course he did. So what?

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/ ... 0n1-1.html

The Cato institute is not what I consider an unbiased source, and frankly, I wouldn't trust a damn thing they said about anything, even when I agree with their position.

The Cato Institute is an overtly biased organization. They state this in their mission statement:

"The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace. The Institute will use the most effective means to originate, advocate, promote, and disseminate applicable policy proposals that create free, open, and civil societies in the United States and throughout the world."

If they left their mission simply at "understanding of public policies", they could possibly then be considered an unbiased source and reliable source of unfiltered, unbiased information.

If EoE were truly seeking to increase knowledge, instead of just furthering an agenda, he would probably spend more time seeking unbiased sources of information (and thus incidentally bring something of value to the debate).

My answer in post 43 applies to you too.



"The Cato Institute is non-partisan, and its scholars' views are not consistently aligned with either major political party. For example, Cato scholars were sharply critical of George W. Bush's administration (2001–2009) on a wide variety of issues, including the Iraq War, civil liberties, education, agriculture, energy policy, and excessive government spending. However, on other issues, most notably health care[1] Social Security,[2][3] global warming,[4] tax policy,[5] and immigration,[6][7][8][9][10] Cato scholars had praised Bush administration initiatives. During the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Cato scholars criticized both major-party candidates, John McCain[11][12] and Barack Obama.[13][14]

The Cato Institute is named the fifth most influential think tank in the world in a study by the University of Pennsylvania in 2010.[15] The same research named Cato the world's "top think tank for innovative ideas" in 2009.[16]"

Wikipedia


Don't tell me they aren't a legitimate source to bring into a debate just because you don't like the facts they reveal.

Again, reread their mission statement. Their mission is to look at policy through the prism of "limited government, free markets, individual liberty".

You have already made your stand against abortion well known... would you listen to a think tank that had "pro-abortion" in their mission statement, no matter how many awards and accolades they received?

I would look at the facts they present, and if I had an issue with the facts I would counter them with true facts. I wouldn't a priori dismiss (not even read?) it because they're not coming from my viewpoint as you routinely do. That would be like saying I'm never going to listen to anything Obama says because he's biased and has an agenda.

The answer I am betting is no... because they are biased from the get go. And while, I have no personal problem with the Cato Institute, what I have a problem with is trying to sell them as an unbiased source.

I never said they didn't have a bias towards economic freedom. That doesn't mean they can't evaluate the results vs. the promises of Romneycare, or make predictions of the effects of Obamacare based on Romney's similar experience.

It is funny that the sources I have seen you quote have all been biased, and have an inherent conflict of interest.

You tried that argument with Prof. John Lott on the gun argument. Did you ever stop to think that maybe he holds his views because he in an open-minded manner investigaged the gun controversy, where the facts led him to his views?

Again, if you were interested in increasing knowledge, and not just furthering an agenda, you would probably seek out more middle field sources... and your posts would be more appreciated.

Here's a tip: Most people here have an agenda. IMHO increasing knowledge advances mine. If you don't appreciate my posts you could always not read them.

The original point of posting your Cato link was to say that Romney's health care was a failure... which who really cares if it was a failure or not. You made that statement to sidestep the fact that you were bashing the current administrations health care policy which is almost a carbon copy of the health care policies that were pushed by previous republican administrations (Romney's included).

And I pointed out that Romney's plan was a mistake. I doubt he'd do it again.

We take your source with a grain of salt for good reason. It is hard for me to hear you criticize our skepticism at such an overtly biased source after you have taken multiple upon multiple other sources (without regard to the level of bias or lack thereof) and reject them outright (I would be willing to bet without even having opened them) because they don't coincide with your viewpoint.

Cite. I think you're simply projecting here.

I meant to say that we would appreciate your posts more, if we gained insight from them. I don't have to agree with a poster to not respect their views. I find it hard to respect the views of someone who has blinders on for anything that does not coincide with his/her viewpoint. I have a great time debating with other posters on here, because at least I feel they are willing to look at other possibilities - even if they present very good points about why they think it wouldn't work.

If you don't want someone criticizing your point of view, may I suggest another venue perhaps?

Where did I say I don't want anyone criticizing my views? If that we're true I wouldn't be here.