A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Hank, this discussion started when club said that he doubted that left/center blogs would be as critical of a Democratic WH as the right/center blogs were of the whole Armstrong Williams thing. When someone pointed out that the liberal media beat on Bill Clinton pretty badly, Club said "pa-lease" and CTD said that Bill was a bad man for having sex in the Oval Office.

SOMEONE? Ahem.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Like what?

Didn't you read all of those Judith Miller articles?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I have a job and over 5000 posts. If I actually read the underlying news articles i woul have to drop one of those 2. Which ones you doing?

Quick story -- apparently, a retort similar to this was prepared for GWB in anticipation of the Miami debate, but because of unexpected transmission problems, the President had to improvise with "I know that. Don't you think I know that?"

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Here's a start - it's not where I recall seing it, and yes I know the source is shady:

• Alexandria, Va.: Mr. Williams, as a paid PR professional, would you say that these types of payments from a federal government agency to PR firms are rare? Did these types of executive branch-media relationships occur during the clinton years, do you know?
  
  Armstrong Williams: Yes, they did. And I'm only finding out by reading today's Wall Street Journal that this is the way they do business in Washington.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Jan7.html

Waitaminnit. You can't find any support for what you say, so you cite Williams, who also can't give any examples for what he says, but says that he read about it in the WSJ?

And do you think maybe that Williams is a somewhat...tainted source?

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Didn't you read all of those Judith Miller articles?

All would be forgiven if the NYT would just show the real George W. Bush -

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Waitaminnit. You can't find any support for what you say, so you cite Williams, who also can't give any examples for what he says, but says that he read about it in the WSJ?

And do you think maybe that Williams is a somewhat...tainted source?

Hence my characterization of the source as "shady."

At this point, I suspect that it does not happen regularly in Washington, but I also was not making up that I read that it does.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
At this point, I suspect that it does not happen regularly in Washington, but I also was not making up that I read that it does.

Taken at face value, this may cast some doubt on your usual sources of info.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I have a job and over 5000 posts. If I actually read the underlying news articles i woul have to drop one of those 2. Which ones you doing?

Like I said, you're changing the subject. NTTAWWT.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
At this point, I suspect that it does not happen regularly in Washington, but I also was not making up that I read that it does.

So what? Your point was not that you read a thoroughly unreliable source saying without any evidence that the Dems also use government lawyers to bribe news outlets into promoting their agenda, like the Bush Admin did. Your point was that the Dems actually do this -- in other words, you were claiming that your "shady" source was correct.


As an analogy, if the Bush Admin had sought to justify going to war in Iraq by claiming evidence of WMD programs based on clearly unreliable sources with a vested interest in removing the current regi..... Oh. Never mind.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
At this point, I suspect that it does not happen regularly in Washington, but I also was not making up that I read that it does.

Does this possibly make you think that perhaps some other things you read aren't what picky, detail-oriented people might call "true"?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Does this possibly make you think that perhaps some other things you read aren't what picky, detail-oriented people might call "true"?

Like evolution?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So what? Your point was not that you read a thoroughly unreliable source saying without any evidence that the Dems also use government lawyers to bribe news outlets into promoting their agenda, like the Bush Admin did. Your point was that the Dems actually do this -- in other words, you were claiming that your "shady" source was correct.


As an analogy, if the Bush Admin had sought to justify going to war in Iraq by claiming evidence of WMD programs based on clearly unreliable sources with a vested interest in removing the current regi..... Oh. Never mind.

No offense, but fuck you all. If you go back and read my original post in context, I was merely offering Ty a possible rationale that I had read (which I had). Sorry, I do not catelog everything I read into good and bad sources.

It must be a really slow day if this is what you want to argue about, especially considering that I agree with you.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Does this possibly make you think that perhaps some other things you read aren't what picky, detail-oriented people might call "true"?

Do you ever possibly consider that I think you are a complete moron too?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No offense, but fuck you all. If you go back and read my original post in context, I was merely offering Ty a possible rationale that I had read (which I had). Sorry, I do not catelog everything I read into good and bad sources.

It must be a really slow day if this is what you want to argue about, especially considering that I agree with you.

It is a really slow day. So slow that we are reduced to watching Hank mimic the process of evolution. Right now he's arguing on a protozoan level.

We heard your possible rationale. We suggest to you, kindly and (from some of us) not so kindly, that it is, as a factual matter, wrong. We await some suggestion -- from a reputable source, perhaps, and not just the ipse dixit of the thoroughly discredited Mr. Williams -- to the contrary, that the Clinton Administration didn't just use government funds to hire PR firms, but that it gave payola to ostensible journalists for favorable coverage. Maybe support for this will evolve out of the primordial ooze.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Like evolution?