See, that is the biggest problem with talinking to you, i am forced to repeat myself over and over again. I said BBC, Chirstian Science Monitor, LA TImes, NY Times and The Journal.
Now, you seem to have a great problem with how you approach informing yourself. What you (and your associates) do is disqualify all information, even that which is taken from legitimate studies if you have already labeled the quoting source as "biased" - or in reality, "biased in such a way as to have me either at a loss or simply conflicting what I claim to be true - based upon MY Biased sources". This is not how legitimate and clear knowlege of the modern world around us is gotten.
You seem to believe that nothing that eminates from what you label a biased source could possibly be true (that is unless and until that formerly biased source says something you agree with - you did so recently actually).
I fear no bias in reporting - you use it as a bludgeon. I go the source and make my own judgements. You know what you know, for instance about the ACA only by what you read about it. You have not read it, you do not engage yourself in it, you simply parrot the source that you have already labeled as being akin to your belief and inheret it as truth as quickly as you are able to assimilate it. That is not the way to become a knowlegeable person, it is only a way to bolser that same bias you claim is so horrible - only this time, within yourself.
Now I have asked you many times, what you would accept as legitimate sources, being somewhat willing to use those for the most part to demonstrate my cases. You have yet to respond.
