Dammit – didn’t hit the stop button in time!
…responsible for more prenatal deaths…
Daniel
http://www.counterpunch.org/mccarthypierce.html
http://www.serbia-info.com/news/1999-04/26/11325.html
http://www.cornellreview.org/viewart.cgi?num=45
http://www.autentico.org/oa09347.php
these are just as reputable as MoveOn, explain them away, or YOU fuck off. Like I said, I can come up with a minimum of 4 sites for every Bush bashing one.
You dumbass, I’m not even going to look at these cites. That’s not how it works.
You want ot use these cites? USE THEM IN CONTEXT! Start a thread dealing with a subject that is covered by one of these cites (better yet, join such a thread). Make an argument using your own words; back up factual declarations in your argument with a link to a website. THEN, if I’m participating in that thread and if I doubt your factual statement, I’ll go take a look at your cite and decide for myself if:
- You’ve accurately represented what the cite has said; and
- The cite is accurately representing what happened.
If I think that 1 or 2 is false, I’ll come back to the thread and explain myself. If 1, then I’ll quote the website more fully to show how you misrepresented it. If 2, I’ll quote a more authoritative website to show how your cite misrepresented what happened.
Don’t just throw cites out devoid of context in order to be a prick. Jesus doesn’t like that kind of behavior.
Daniel
ok, I’ll use them in context. Clinton is bad. See how easy it is?
Just for giggles, folks, check out duffer’s serb-info link. This isn’t a counter to a Bush-bashing; rather, it’s a 1999 article that seems to be, in broken English, comparing NATO to Nazi Germany:
Riiiiiight. What exactly are you trying to prove here, duffer? What were you saying in that other thread about studying insanity?
Daniel
Why they don’t ban people for willful ignorance I’ll never understand.
You know now how to be taken seriously. If you choose to deliberately misinterpret that advice in order to act like a prick, why, that’s your decision. You’ll get called assclown a lot, but more power to you if that’s what you want.
Or you can argue honestly and cogently, and get respect.
Daniel
Um, are you really that stupid? You said:
Seems pretty clear that you’re complaining about people posting on this board, and using cites to back up their positions:
What I’m asking you for is a cite (i.e. a link or a quote or something - some kind of evidence) that people on this board cite Moveon.org and never get challenged. Idiot.
so much for not checking out the cites.
Holy shit. I just checked out the second of duffer’s four cites (remember, he’s using these cites to argue that Clinton is bad). I know I said I wouldn’t look at them, but the entertainment value is too high.
Turns out it’s an article disparaging a campus animal-rights newspaper. It has nothing to do with Clinton whatsoever.
Well, that’s not quite true: apparently, the article appeared in a campus newsletter issue entitled “Lies, Damn Lies and Clinton” in September 1996. Other than that, it has nothing to do with Clinton.
What does it share in common with the first cite I looked at? Why, on that web page, the word “Nazi” appears close to the word “Clinton.”
Did this dumbshit really just google Clinton and Nazi and throw up a bunch of links without even looking at them first?
Let’s see. I’ll go look at his other two links and report back.
Daniel
I happen to like smores.
Looks good so far: the third cite links to an article about the Black Book of Communism, in which the word Nazi appears close to the word Clinton. Some yahoo says returning Elian Gonzalez to Cuba “would be exactly the same thing as returning a Jewish boy to Nazi Germany.” In the next paragraph appears the sentence, “Because of President Clinton’s incredible blundering, the Russian Federation has renewed its interest in and support of Cuba.”
Other than that, “Clinton” isn’t mentioned on the page – except for in the left-hand column, where there’s a list of over 2,500 invisible keywords. The list contains IP addresses, words like “antibiotics” (which appears nowhere else on the page, incidentally), and names like “Antonio Mendez” and “Clinton.”
Let’s check out the last cite, which is in my opinion the classiest:
He links to the leftist website Counterpunch, in an article written by Alexander Cockburn, that famous Clinton-basher. Well, maybe not so famous after all: in the article, he quotes two people disparaging Clinton.
One of them is probably well-known to most of you: Osama Bin Laden says, according to the article,
Pierce? Who’s Pierce? Why, he’s the other person in the article who disparages Clinton. And he’s the head of the neo-Nazi (notice that word Nazi) organization National Alliance.
Checkmate, dude. You’ve proven that you don’t know how to use cites, and that by bashing Clinton, you’ve joined the company of terrorists and neo-Nazis.
Daniel
Dipshit, the Clinton reference was in jest. My OP was referring to the fact that anyone can find a website to back up any outlandish claim ON EITHER SIDE OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM!!! I’m done trying to argue the point with you. You have a blinding hatred for the American Right. I get it. I’m no fan of the American Left, but if you want to debate a point, I’m there. I hate that Bush has given Carte Blanche to illegals that go to the front of the line, in effect telling those trying to get here legally are SOL, but that is getting way off topic.
If my OP wasn’t neutral enough for you, well, I won’t aplogize for it. I’m just worried how thin-skinned we’re becoming. Stand up for what you believe in, but don’t take pot-shots and claim the high road.
Addendum: William Pierce, author of the Turner Diaries, is perhaps the head of National Alliance, depending on what your definition of “is” is. At the time of the article he is the head of the organization; at the time of this post, he’s pushing up Aryan Jew-hating daisies.
Daniel
I love that you call me dipshit.
Daniel
my pleasure sweet-cheeks 
God, this is annoying. Is this stupid thread spilling over from political argument from elsewhere? It seems like it, so link us the fuck up so we have a damn clue.
As far as cites go, I think Daniel summed it up well.
I assumed what Desmostylus meant was, provide some cites of people misusing sites here on SDMB. I know it happens all the time, so that shouldn’t be too hard for you.
I think dipshit Danny and duffer bailed out of the topic and started throwing conservative and liberal punches at each other. I thought that the whole rant was about people who pile on cites instead of argueing their point. Duffer was implying that with so many editorial cites available on the web, anybody can find multiple cites that support their opinion. That doesn’t make them right. It just means that they can find editorial cites.
Bubba
Hey, he said he loves to be called dipshit.
Shit, I can link to a thread in which cites are horribly misused. As usual, the person horribly misusing cites got torn into pieces for doing it. So what’s the problem?
Daniel
Thanks Bubba