I didn't "attack" him, I just pointed out that he is far from a neutral observer. My counter-sources are also politically biased, but if I understand correctly their point about his math, you have to wonder whether he isn't shading it quite a bit by making some absurd assumptions.
I said you attacked his associations and veracity rather than his point. Classic move to discredit the point by saying he's biased because of his associations.
Where do you see absurd assumptions? Are they any more absurd than counting a cut and savings twice?
The only neutral source I have recently seen comment is the CBO, which says it is a slight net budget reducer in the first decade, and then a substantial budget reducer the following decade.
The CBO made the calculation with the absurd assumption of double counting. They admitted that assumption was in fact double counting and the results are different without the double counting.
As for the SEALS, what I objected to was the reporting of that "story" as though these fellows had been sought out by a reporter trying to get to the truth when, in reality it turns out some of them are friends with each other and one is now a Republican state senator, and the "story" originally suspiciously appeared as "news" in a conservative British tabloid.
Same point - default position of question the veracity of the source rather than lend any credence to the story.
This technique has been a favorite ploy by the far right for the last few years. A British tabloid paper with a pronounced conservative agenda, and unknown to many Americans, goes out and finds some people to criticize Obama and then prints it as though it was news. Then some American bloggers, particularly Drudge or Hannity or Limbaugh, pick it up and reprint it as though it were a legitimate news story that these guys had each simply come forward with some hard facts, as opposed to their opinion masquerading as fact.
The reason that guys like Drudge, Breitbart (when he was alive), et al, have such lousy reputations in journalistic circles is because they knowingly re-publish or rehash agenda-driven political mish-mash as though it had the imprimatur of actual journalism, as opposed to basically a political piece written the guise of reporting.
