or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Richard Clarke
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Richard Clarke - Page 10

post #361 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by HOM
Maybe because you continue to push an ideology even in the face of contradicting information and continue to push talking points without engaging in a reasonable discussion. I find the 'ditto head' label apt when a person just repeats what they heard from one of their partisan 'news' sources without questioning their motives or goals.

What ideology am I pushing, exactly?

I really did not know I was "pushing" anything, please clarify..
post #362 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by HOM
Despite the jokes, Jon Stewart is one of the best, if not the best, interviewer on TV. His depth of knowledge and insight into current affairs continues to astonish me. I knew he was the best on TV when he asked Madeline Albright what it was like to be the last Westerner in North Korea and if they were as dangerous as they were being made out to be. When was the last time you heard a thoughtful question like that on the national news? Similarly if you read the Newsweek cover story on Mr. Stewart over the summer you would know that the Daily Show has quickly become one of the most important TV shows to go on if you're involved with politics or the government.

No kidding. Clearly everyone in Washington knows it, too.
post #363 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Clarke's publisher has not even booked him on one FNC show!

So? When was the last time there was thoughtful discussion on Fox? Hell, when was the last time there was a discussion on fox that didn't entail yelling at or about someone?

Fox is a total joke. Tard FUBU.
Quote:
I think we know the leaning of the daily show. I have watched them hatchet this president.

The Daily Show has long had a steady stream of the most conservative of conservative guests, including probably every conservative author they could get and even folks like Perle, Kristol, Giuliani. And they all praise the show.

Also, has there ever been an interview where Stewart has been rude at all to his guests? I certainly haven't seen it. Even with the real wack-jobs he is totally cordial. I wonder if he's ever even disagreed with a guest during the interview.
post #364 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
So? When was the last time there was thoughtful discussion on Fox? Hell, when was the last time there was a discussion on fox that didn't entail yelling at or about someone?

Fox is a total joke. Tard FUBU.

The Daily Show has long had a steady stream of the most conservative of conservative guests, including probably every conservative author they could get and even folks like Perle, Kristol, Giuliani. And they all praise the show.

Also, has there ever been an interview where Stewart has been rude at all to his guests? I certainly haven't seen it. Even with the real wack-jobs he is totally cordial. I wonder if he's ever even disagreed with a guest during the interview.

Well, neil cavuto has a pretty good show when I catch that. The Factor is a very good show, and on the record is also pretty good. You generalize way too much.

To you it may be a joke, but they are a news network that went from nothing to one of the, if not the most influential news networks in the world. That is not because they are a joke IMO.

As far as Stewart and interviews, now that I think about it, you may be right, the ones I have seen he is fairly cordial. The hatcheting I have seen have been during his SNL type news segments and monologues. I don't watch the show regularly, but it seems every time I have tuned to the station he was hacking at bush. I haven't kept a log or anything but it seems that it is in the range of a couple dozen times over the last few months. Maybe it was just first impressions (first 20 or so impressions). So I could very well be wrong.

I actually like his humor. It just seemed to me that he was trying to go out of his way to rip Bush IMO.
post #365 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
It just seemed to me that he was trying to go out of his way to rip Bush IMO.

He hardly has to go out of his way. The material practically writes itself.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #366 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
So? When was the last time there was thoughtful discussion on Fox? ....

Do you ever watch Special Report or are you just an ignorant troll?
post #367 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Do you ever watch Special Report or are you just an ignorant troll?

Ad-Hominem attack? I thought these were no-no's.

Oh, and the Daily show interview was actually pretty good. John Stewart said (for those who have not read the book myself included) that the book is fair and balanced. The last 40'ish pages are the ones which mildly criticize big brother and the gang.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #368 of 402
Giant's a big tough guy. He can take it.
post #369 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX

To you it may be a joke, but they are a news network that went from nothing to one of the, if not the most influential news networks in the world. That is not because they are a joke IMO.

Certainly not. It's because they pander to a segment of the population that enjoys watching right wing blow hards express mock horror and disgust at the doings of "the liberals". There will always be a big market for bullying and shouting, it's much funner to watch than reasoned analysis.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #370 of 402
Clarke really lost points in my mind. Stewart asked some amazing questions like the spy plane incident and what hindered the WoT more, political vitriol or bureaucratic ineptitude. Clarke didn't really answer either question, but moved on to his talking points. \

However, Stewart asked some amazing questions and provided the most lucent defense of the administration I've heard to date.
CARTHAGO DELENDA EST
Reply
CARTHAGO DELENDA EST
Reply
post #371 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Giant's a big tough guy. He can take it.

lol I'd say you are correct.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #372 of 402
I got bored with all the talking head shows a long while ago. I don't watch a lot of fox shows like The Factor and Hanity and Combs and all that. Just special report and little news updates. I think the real problem is that people aren't used to hearing something other than the political pander. God forbid Brit Hume have someone on to talk about why oil prices are so high and what little we can do about it short of pressuring OPEC to increase production. The entire discussion outside the usual Bush v Kerry context.
post #373 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Do you ever watch Special Report or are you just an ignorant troll?

What, with all Brit Hume's little grunts, grumbles and head shaking tacking his opinion on every story?

I like the facts. CNN is weak but at least they suck so bad at subtly injecting opinion that it doesn't seep into every single story that airs. TV news blows overall, but the two problems with fox are that a) people don't realize that it's just one big-ass opinion column and b) people actually find that crap entertaining.

In the world of TV it looks like news only in the same way a heroin junkie smokes weed to sober up.
post #374 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
What, with all Brit Hume's little grunts, grumbles and head shaking tacking his opinion on every story?

I like the facts. CNN is weak but at least they suck so bad at subtly injecting opinion that it doesn't seep into every single story that airs. TV news blows overall, but the two problems with fox are that a) people don't realize that it's just one big-ass opinion column and b) people actually find that crap entertaining.

In the world of TV it looks like news only in the same way a heroin junkie smokes weed to sober up.

Facial expressions?

Those things can be interpreted any way you want, that is by no means a measure of credibility. I just watched an interview by him and I saw none of that. I was even looking for it. Was I missing something? The guy really seems to have one expression. I really don't know where you get this stuff.
post #375 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Was I missing something?

As usual.
post #376 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
As usual.

What was I missing, be more specific, if you can.
post #377 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Do you ever watch Special Report or are you just an ignorant troll?

Doesn't this post breach the new guidelines?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #378 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
a) people don't realize that it's just one big-ass opinion column and b) people actually find that crap entertaining.


Mr. Murdoch has made quite a bit of money by people who find "that crap" entertaining.


As for an opinion column---it is more subconsious than anything--not giving their politcal views the turpentine and corncob treatment must be a relief to their viewers.

But then I don't watch televsion.

I think also that most people don't understand marketing, don't undertstand basic rehtoric techniques, and don't recognized cheap sniping techniques, as in when "the news" isn't that Bush "went to the WTO meeting and and gave a speech...bla bla bla" it's "today teh Bush admisitration responded to allegations that....bla bla bla." So when a conservative listens to NPR and winces they may not really understand why. Hey, they're just reporting the news!

It's all one big sham. Most of you guys in these forums think your salvation rests with one political party or another, when in reality they are two groups of ENORMOUSLY weathy people who work in the same mysteroius ways, and make the same mysterious money, from the same lobbyists or backroom deals.

Oh Bush is a cocksucker, he's big money form out east...bla bla bla.....

....but then you look at Kerry and his wife, her money, and her connections.

What a crock! (and of course if's just about one man, in one brach of goverment) oh, sure. It's so easy to be distracted, so easy to fall for the redirection---these people in these poitcal juntas are getting wealthy in representative postions, doesn't that sound odd?

And now, one political machine and it's 5-to-1 advantage in the popular media, is engaging in every single cheap editing, scripting, camera angle, body language, and phrasing techniqe to smear the other party and doing it with a straight face---while calling FoxNews "partisan" and feigning shock.

!

Granted this is not new, and it is WAY tamer than in 18th-19th century, but I guess no one is learning the lessons of the past.

This is not sane.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #379 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
As for an opinion column---it is more subconsious than anything--not giving their politcal views the turpentine and corncob treatment must be a relief to their viewers.

Except that Murdoch and Ailes specifically created it to be a platform for right-wing opinions. That's the whole point of the channel. But Fox viewers also aren't the kinds of folks that bother to pick up printed word to read them talk about it.

Fox succeeds because it is crap. It panders to the lowest common denominator. Entertainment on fox consists of arguments and yelling. It literally takes Jerry Springer and lays it over current events. It's the exact same model. It elicits an emotional response from the viewer and little else.

This is also seen in their obvious policy to have anchors grunt and make stupid little comments about every story, a technique designed to connect to the viewer emotionally and at the same time instill and reinforce the values that FOX is *openly* trying to promote. Every piece of info comes with an opinion.

Fox news is to news what jerry springer is to relationships. Literally. That's why it's successful.

Contrast it to the Daily Show where the entertainment comes in light-hearted witty comments and skits. The interviews are about giving the guest a platform, and they get that platform no matter how wacky the ideas. Entertainment comes from information sprinkled with little jokes that make everyone laugh, including the guests, and serve to keep the interviews from becoming too dry.

Why do you think the Daily Show is getting such a big following? Because Jerry Springer and FOX are trash TV.
post #380 of 402
I know, giant, I know. Fox on an entertainment level is the worst sort of trash. But the ambient mode of approaching the right in America in the popular media for decades has been the very subtle "responded to allegations" framing, which wears on a large segement of America. You don't see this because you frame "the news" differently than the right does. But it gets REALLY annoying to hear political hit pieces, consrtucted using the tools of marketing, presented as news. It took an outsider and a demagoge to give the poeple what they want.

Just think, that market has laid there for years, and no one (as in The Passion's suprise success) dared venture in and take those profits.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #381 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by HOM
Clarke really lost points in my mind. Stewart asked some amazing questions like the spy plane incident and what hindered the WoT more, political vitriol or bureaucratic ineptitude. Clarke didn't really answer either question, but moved on to his talking points. \

However, Stewart asked some amazing questions and provided the most lucent defense of the administration I've heard to date.

I didn't mind the talking points.

The interview was actually pretty interesting. Nothing that we didn't already know, but it was indeed interesting.
post #382 of 402
Last page for this. Last post for this. Last link...

Democrats/Republicans...all have idiots.



I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
post #383 of 402
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...i?ArtNum=41934
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/co...408&catcode=11

Clarke was there and also had "every opportunity" to speak up then also, if he disagreed, as he now apparently does. Why would he not resign then, because it seems that clinton and the gang were obviously lying at least according to his public testimony.

Things are really not adding up as far as this guy goes.
post #384 of 402
Quote:

What's your point here? That there was indeed evidence linking Iraq to Al-Qaeda because of the VX (which actually later turned out to not be VX)?
Quote:

Clarke was there and also had "every opportunity" to speak up then also, if he disagreed, as he now apparently does. Why would he not resign then, because it seems that clinton and the gang were obviously lying at least according to his public testimony.

Things are really not adding up as far as this guy goes.

Did you ever think maybe it gets explained in the book?
post #385 of 402
When is Clarke going to write his book on the Clinton security failures...........wait a minute.............if he did that, would it mean the George Stephanopoulos would call the major media outlets and tell them to backlist the book?

Nevermind........wrong decade.

/* begin Clinton/Clarke tour de force from an unnamed website**/

In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In October 1993, 18 American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The body of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes cheered.

Clinton responded by calling off the hunt for Mohammed Farrah Aidid and ordering our troops home. Osama bin Laden later told ABC News: "The youth ... realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."

In November 1995, five Americans were killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia set by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In June 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

Months later, Saddam attacked the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, lobbed some bombs into Iraq hundreds of miles from Saddam's forces.

In November 1997, Iraq refused to allow U.N. weapons inspections to do their jobs and threatened to shoot down a U.S. U-2 spy plane.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In February 1998, Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the United Nations said no.

On Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

On Aug. 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury.

Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory.

On Dec. 16, the House of Representatives prepared to impeach Clinton the next day.

Clinton retaliated by ordering major air strikes against Iraq, described by the New York Times as "by far the largest military action in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War in 1991."

The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999 when Clinton attacked Serbians who were fighting Islamic fanatics.

In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

/* end Clinton/Clarke tour de force*************************/

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #386 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz


/* begin Clinton/Clarke tour de force from an unnamed website**/

And the reason you won't name your website is..?

It's OK. 15 seconds on Google reveals two candidates: Frontpage, with graphics like a German skinhead site, and freerepublic.com, a 'Conservative news forum' populated by... oh I don't think I'd get on there.

I'll have another hunt later.
post #387 of 402
one hint: Robbie Burns used this to mess up a mouse house.



[evil laughter]

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #388 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Doesn't this post breach the new guidelines?

Well, this does, people should note, and the door swings both ways on this. People call Scott a troll in about three other threads right now, so I suspect he's getting in a few shots himself. That's why we don't like peopel to do this, and why it's going to stop here... right?

BTW, the "as usual" comment above is also a bit snide for the forum guidelines too.
post #389 of 402
So let's review the White House's claims:

1. Clarke is out of the loop except when he is not, in which case the whole damn thing is his fault.
2. He is a partisan hack except when he dutifully served three Republican administrations.
3. No one at the White House can corroborate details of his story, except the several that can, including the National Security Adviser and the President himself.
4. He's really just pumping a book he conveniently released the week of his testimony, except for the inconvenient fact that the timing of its publication is the White House's fault.
5. He is mad because he got demoted, but somehow he's wrong that the issue he was in charge of got demoted along with him.
6. He never discussed his concerns about al Qaeda, except for the dozens of times he did.
7. Because the White House made him tell half-truths to reporters in 2002, he's lying now when he tells the whole truth.
8. He might have perjured himself, except that he didn't.
9. And he's a racist for only attacking "the black chick", at least when he's not lambasting all the white dudes around her.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #390 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by BuonRotto
People call Scott a troll in about three other threads right now, so I suspect he's getting in a few shots himself.

"About three other threads"?
Interesting. So I guess it's not just one or two people? Quack quack.

dmz: I'm just curious because I don't have Clarke's book yet. In his book, which I assumed you have read, is it your assertion that Clarke did not criticize the Clinton admin. at all?
Would you mind naming that unnamed website?

"In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by Muslim extremists.
Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing. "

Please remind us what Bush did about it a short 3 months later?
post #391 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
one hint: Robbie Burns used this to mess up a mouse house.

[evil laughter]

Quote:
'To a Mouse'
Robert Burns

Thy wee bit housie, too, in ruin!
It's silly wa's the win's are strewin!
An' naething, now, to big a new ane,
O' foggage green!
An' bleak December's winds ensuin,
Baith snell an' keen!

[stony face]Just tell me the name of the website now.[/stony face]
post #392 of 402
Phew. Google proving as useless as Coalition attempts to find evidence of WOMD (related) development programmes, I turned to alltheweb.com.

Oh, I found the smoking gun alright. But it ain't pretty.

Laydees and gennlemen, introducing...

clintoncrimes.com!

What kind of a site is this?



Enough said.

I wouldn't have the balls to post the url either.
post #393 of 402
Well the thing is, does it matter which site it came from? I mean those facts can't really be disputed. We can debate the merit of them, but there is nothing wrong with the points that were posted, no matter who the source was.

Dismissing information solely on it's source is not always advisable.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #394 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
Well the thing is, does it matter which site it came from? I mean those facts can't really be disputed. We can debate the merit of them, but there is nothing wrong with the points that were posted, no matter who the source was.

The way those "points" are made is just silly to call it something. Did you even go to it? It's a childish anti-clinton site. Give me a break. So rageous, I gather you know enough about the points made there ....to validate them as accurate and true?
Quote:
Dismissing information solely on it's source is not always advisable. [/B]

Yeah, I'm sure you'd have no problem with someone posting something they saw on...al jazeera? The website above is just a conspiracy theorist site with an anti clinton bias. No wonder the original poster didn't want to post a link to it, or reference it by name.
post #395 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
We can debate the merit of them, but there is nothing wrong with the points that were posted, no matter who the source was.

Unfortunately after reading just a few points I noticed that most were false.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #396 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
Well the thing is, does it matter which site it came from? I mean those facts can't really be disputed. We can debate the merit of them, but there is nothing wrong with the points that were posted, no matter who the source was.

Dismissing information solely on it's source is not always advisable.

"Facts" that can't be disputed?

Quote:
Time Magazine recently printed a story about Clinton handing the incoming Bush Administration a plan, but quickly that myth was dispersed. Bush Administration officials denied ever getting any plan only leaving us to conclude that Time Magazine was being spoon fed by Clinton toadies. They turned a quick power point presentation with one section whereby Clarke made a few suggestion into some elaborate plan and blueprint for going after Al Qaeda. It was a 3 to 5 year roll back.


Clinton did help the incoming Bush Administration by denying them transition funds and forcing them to set up an office in Virginia and run off of donations. Addtionally he looted and then vandalized the White House. Bush has a plan crafted to eliminate Al Qaeda and did approve it only days before 9-11 and it unfortunately was too late.

So let's see: the Bush whitehouse denial that there was ever a plan (since retracted) must be the work of Time magazine being spoon fed by "Clinton toadies" An indesputable fact, apparently.

The denying the Bush admin transition funds and vandalizing the white house are tired old right wing urban myths that have been refuted by everyone involved, including the Bush white house.

But it's important to take this seriously, because it's not legitimate to dismiss tin foil hat land as a "source"

There's a reason this stuff's not running in mainstream publications, and I'll give you a hint: it's not because of the "liberal media".
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #397 of 402
like I said, debate the points instead of blowing them off because of the source, which is the common thing to do around here.

and please stop mistaking my not trashing his source as some sort of confirmation that i support the site or somehow find them to be a reliable source of unbiased knowledge.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #398 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
[stony face]Just tell me the name of the website now.[/stony face]


Quote:
Thou saw the fields laid bare an' wast,
An' weary Winter comin fast,
An' cozie here, beneath the blast,
Thou thought to dwell,
Till crash! the cruel coulter past
Out thro' thy cell.


In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #399 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
like I said, debate the points instead of blowing them off because of the source, which is the common thing to do around here.

The thing about participating in a web forum, is that the LEAST one can do is post something based on a website that has a decent track record or decent sources. It's like an unwritten rule.
Discussing stuff from wacko sites like that one, or the one about the Clinton deathsquads is not only insulting to the participants, but a waste of everyone's time.
post #400 of 402
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
like I said, debate the points instead of blowing them off because of the source, which is the common thing to do around here.



You want to see how easy it is? Let's just take the first one:
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

Clinton did nothing? Do you really need someone to explain it?

The fact is that when someone vomits out this much obviously false information, it's a waste of time to point out how it's obviously wrong. As much fun as it may be to waste time on AO, responding to pure junk like this doesn't make the cut.

After all, if you guys want to hold obviously false positions, have your position be at least slightly entertaining. Claim that the Loch Ness monster built the pyramids. Argue that Britney Spears isn't a fat girl waiting to be free. At least make it worth our time to point out how your positions are obviously wrong.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Richard Clarke