How to reference your argument (and not just spew propaganda)

In order to have a valid argument, you have to prove or at least support your points with either accepted fact, such as: the US Declaration of Independence calls for the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; or questionable facts that need independent documentation/verification, such as the Taliban now uses weapons provided by the USA to the Mujahideen during the 1980s:

"Among the weapons the U.S. government sent or had delivered to the Mujahideen were Soviet-origin SA-7 Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAMs), FIM-92 Stinger SAMs, AK-47 assault rifles, and other small arms and light weapons.

"Suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Laden was apparently able to procure a number of SA-7 SAMs and Stingers, which he could use to target civilian aircraft in future acts of terror. [3] [this is their footnote for THEIR source]

"The Taliban ...are now armed with weapons left by the Soviets, weapons left over from the U.S. arms pipeline of the 1980s, and arms recently sent by Pakistan, which has leftover stores from the 1980s and acquires other items on the international black market. Pakistan has allegedly continued to provide the Taliban weapons in violation of the UN arms embargo put in place in December 2000. [4]" http://www.fas.org/terrorism/at/index.html

This is the same Pakistan, btw, run by Military Dictator Pervez Musharraf, whom the US has supported for many years. "Since 2001, Pakistan has become one of the largest recipients of U.S. security assistance, including arms transfers; from FY2002 to FY2006, Musharraf's regime has received nearly $1 billion in Foreign Military Financing (grant aid provided to foreign countries specifically for the purchase of US weapons), and has signed government-to-government agreements for nearly $4.34 billion in U.S. weaponry, according to the Defense Department.* http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/11/us_arms_sales_to_pakistan_new.php

That's what is meant by referencing your argument.Read. Study. Learn. Listen to Bill Moyers, Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, etc. Listen to people you don't agree with. Engage.

Listen to the Thomas Jefferson hour on Tuesdays on NPR to get an educated and informed perspective on what the founders of this country really intended. Jefferson's view was MUCH closer to Ron Paul's than to George Bush's or even Ronald Reagan's.

Are we really ready?

Is the US really ready to elect a black man president? Or is this a "we'd rather have a black MAN than a white WOMAN? or is it rich white liberal guilt?I find it very hard to believe that this country is ready for a black president. Or rather—because I don’t think color (or gender) has much to do with a person’s ability to do the job—that this country is ready to VOTE IN a black president. Especially one as erudite and intellectual as Obama obviously is. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing, nothing at all against the young, idealistic, multicultural, inspiring man who has studied the mannerisms of his predecessors and made them his own; all through Thursday night’s speech I saw shadows of Martin and Malcolm, Tutu and Mandela, even Maya Angelou and Oprah, and yet he was never more his own man than when he gave that speech.

For the first time in many years I am shocked AND surprised—and even more amazing is that it is a PLEASANT shock. Unfortunately, years of cynicism make me question both the rationale and the legitimacy of the whole thing. If it’s true that the corporatocracy runs things, then it matters not one whit whether the candidate is black, green, purple; or for that matter, whether it is a he, she or it. All that matters is that the person is a tool of the corporatocracy; being so, anyone can win. Being not, no one can win. Barack Obama does not seem to be a tool—he has worked extraordinarily hard (and somewhat successfully) to come across as honest, sincere, trustworthy. His idealistic rhetoric truly does restore hope. Yet in this fractured society, can his message really pull a majority out to vote for him.


Sadly, also, we already see harbingers of attitudes to come if Obama gets the nomination—check this out, gleaned 3rd hand from Salon but important as a reminder http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/:

By sending forth Hussein Osama out of Iowa, Democrats have unwittingly weakened their general election prospects.
Hussein's exotic mixture of radical liberalism, Kwanzaa Socialism, antipathy towards the unborn, and weakness against his jihadi brethren will all come back to destroy him against almost any Republican opponent, even the snake-grope from Hope. . . .
As defenders of this great Republic, and of the pinnacle of Western civilization that it represents, we should all come together tonight and agree on a common strategy that will keep the White House from becoming a madrassa.

Most important for me, however, is that I have come around to the belief that only Hillary Clinton is our only hope. No offense to Obama, but I don't think he can do it. Even though I ADORE John and Elizabeth Edwards, I don't even think Edwards can do it. I think Hillary is the only one with the experience combined with the MEANNESS to do what has to be done—everything is going to fall apart either just before or just after Bush leaves and we need someone who doesn't give a SHIT what people think, who knows what has to be done and will do it.

It's not going to be a time for a new vision, it's going to be a time for pulling this country back from the edge of the chasm. I don’t want someone—especially someone I like and sympathise with—stuck in the middle of a vortex of absolute chaos with no idea where to go next. Gimme the woman with 8 years on the job and her husband—best two-for-one bargain this country’s ever going to get in national politics—and set them to it, because we’re going to need all that they can give us plus as many contributions from the rest of the field as we can get!