alright, let me try this. the angiledes commission on the financial crisis had six democrats and four republicans. all the democrats endorsed the factual conclusions; all the republicans dissented. but ideological affiliation is irrelevant to the question of what caused the crisis. so the split is either a coincidence or political affiliation was more relevant to people than the facts. unless you're in a position to independently assess the evidence, you should regard neither group as credible. but these 10 people, let's say, also split exactly the same way on whether the healthcare bill will increase the deficit. now what could possibly have been a striking coincidence has become even more striking. that would be plenty to make the only reasonable response just to dismiss all these people: it's obvious that they just don't care about the facts; all they care about is loyalty within their little group. those are supposedly our leaders  and experts. that is absurd. every such split would be a further multiplication of the odds. that our whole political discourse consists of stuff like this, and that people keep listening, just shows how little anybody cares about what's true. it's bizarre that people regard the spokesmen even for their own group as having any credibility, and everyone should check out of the arguments immediately.