Saddam's Terror Training Camps

[Said1]

Are you denying, then, that the WP was as critical of Clinton and the Dems during his administration as they now are of Bush and the Pubs?

No. Why?

 

[Nightwish]

No. Why?

Because that was the point that was being made, the point you found so ridiculous because of the particular wording I chose to illustrate that point.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

RWA, you hav my official apology for calling you a dictionary dependent wuss.

I took it as a compliment!

 

[Said1]

Because that was the point that was being made, the point you found so ridiculous because of the particular wording I chose to illustrate that point.

B-b-b-ut I didn't deny anything. Did I? Are you on some kind of message board high?

 

[Said1]

I took it as a compliment!

Read my sig.

 

[manu1959]

Originally Posted by Nightwish
No, but it means that when used as a resource to prop up an argument, they should be taken with a truckload of salt.

interesting.........what sources do you not take with a truckload of salt?

in what tome would this report need to be printed for you to trust it?

bump

 

[Nightwish]

interesting.........what sources do you not take with a truckload of salt?

In the world of news journals and weblogs, very few. I consider academic websites, peer-reviewed journals, government sites, things like that, much more reliable. I'll occasionally use news journals and weblogs as sources, but usually with a caveat that the material might not be accurate, as I did when I posted the NYT article about the data mining. Information that is common knowledge or public domain is generally okay, too, such as the quotes from the Founding Fathers (both the ones posted by me and others in the "not a Christian nation" camp, and the ones posted by those from the "Christian nation" camp), because many of those sources and quotes have been confirmed and authenticated ad nauseum.

in what tome would this report need to be printed for you to trust it?

If the story proves to be true, it'll be huge, so it is not likely that the mainstream media will ignore it. So if it appears in the mainstream media, it'll have a better air of reliability. And if it appears on the White House website, or other official sites, that'll help a lot. But as long as it is only appearing in the most extreme right-wing publications, sorry, uh uh.

 

[Annie]

In the world of news journals and weblogs, very few. I consider academic websites, peer-reviewed journals, government sites, things like that, much more reliable. I'll occasionally use news journals and weblogs as sources, but usually with a caveat that the material might not be accurate, as I did when I posted the NYT article about the data mining. Information that is common knowledge or public domain is generally okay, too, such as the quotes from the Founding Fathers (both the ones posted by me and others in the "not a Christian nation" camp, and the ones posted by those from the "Christian nation" camp), because many of those sources and quotes have been confirmed and authenticated ad nauseum.


If the story proves to be true, it'll be huge, so it is not likely that the mainstream media will ignore it. So if it appears in the mainstream media, it'll have a better air of reliability. And if it appears on the White House website, or other official sites, that'll help a lot. But as long as it is only appearing in the most extreme right-wing publications, sorry, uh uh.

From one that often quotes and links to such, can't wait for you to post ONE. That will be cool, hasn't happened yet. Dweeb.

 

[Nightwish]

From one that often quotes and links to such, can't wait for you to post ONE. That will be cool, hasn't happened yet. Dweeb.

You haven't been following closely enough, I guess. In those conversations where I've made objective claims that something is, or something isn't (as opposed to only offering opinions as food for thought), I have quoted and linked. When I said that if the article is accurate, the scope of the wire-tapping is broader than the WH has told us, I linked directly to the article, as well as posting excerpts from it. When I said that the Founding Fathers have explicitly stated that the United States was not intended to be construed as a Christian nation, I linked to a website containing numerous direct quotes taken from the public domain (the authenticity of those quotes is not in question, even from the right). The only debate I've been in where I haven't posted links and quotes is the one in which I opined that war might not have been the only way to remove Saddam Hussein. I offered opinion as food for thought, suggesting a few ways that might have worked. Mere opinions don't require documentation, citation, quotes and links. They're just opinions.

 

[Annie]

You haven't been following closely enough, I guess. In those conversations where I've made objective claims that something is, or something isn't (as opposed to only offering opinions as food for thought), I have quoted and linked. When I said that if the article is accurate, the scope of the wire-tapping is broader than the WH has told us, I linked directly to the article, as well as posting excerpts from it. When I said that the Founding Fathers have explicitly stated that the United States was not intended to be construed as a Christian nation, I linked to a website containing numerous direct quotes taken from the public domain (the authenticity of those quotes is not in question, even from the right). The only debate I've been in where I haven't posted links and quotes is the one in which I opined that war might not have been the only way to remove Saddam Hussein. I offered opinion as food for thought, suggesting a few ways that might have worked. Mere opinions don't require documentation, citation, quotes and links. They're just opinions.

I'm having connection problems, could you link your posts, please? I'm going to be on and off, for awhile. Seems SBC is having problems. :coffee3:

 

[Gunny]

I fully recognize the pro-left stance it takes on many issues. I also remember (as you appear not to), the pro-right stance it took on many issues during the Clinton administration. The WP was every bit as harshly critical of Clinton and his policies, as they are of Bush and his. That's why I said they are "counter-President," not "anti-President." They aren't haters of the Presidency, they are the mouthpiece for the voice that isn't coming out of the White House.

Again, no point in trying to help the blind to see. You are beyond hope.

 

[Nightwish]

Again, no point in trying to help the blind to see. You are beyond hope.

So are you denying, then, that they were as critical of Clinton and the Dems during his Presidency, as they are now of Bush and the Republicans?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I know the NY Times has had quite a few scandals recently, one involving a writer who was making up stories, and he quit or was fired over it.

Im wondering if our "damsel in distress" who claiims a truckload of salt is needed, could please produce and such scandals from The weeklly standard.

But you gotta love his creative use of the ad hominem attack!