Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
So weary of reading posts like yours. You made a provocative statement
about Clinton. Please show us all some courtesy by justifying your accusation
with some facts that are referenced. Back your argument and let it be
examined by fact checking, to stand or fall on merit and accuracy.
If you just want to post propaganda or slogans, please take it over to the "discussion" thread. I am sorry if this seems too blunt, but I am truly frustrated that you think that you can do this anytime you want to, on
the politics thread. Yesterday, on the "thanks for the memories" topic, started by Pinkie, there were 30 initial posts with no links that consisted of slogans and
unsubstantiated and unreferenced opinons. I called members on it, there,
and I'm going to challenge anybody I see doing it, from now on. If the mods
can't, or won't admonish this practice and trend.....they should ban me
and rename this "Discussion II".
|
I find this type of thought highly arrogant. I remember watching Washington Journal on C-SPAN before the election when they had some author on, who happened to be liberal. He was talking about his book, which IIRC was about the war on terror and the Bush admin's actions. Someone called in and criticized what he wrote. His answer to what the caller said was "Where's your footnotes? My book has over 1000 footnotes" as if that somehow was a reasonable response. Not everyone has time to write books and do research to check the work of others, just like not everyone has an hour to spend finding and reviewing articles to support whatever position they take. I have seen many articles on here cited as some sort of reasonable authority which were little more than personal attacks upon those with differing opinions, not acutal unbiased facts. I remember a thread on here about people's reliance on the founders of America to prove their positions, well at least most of them have some solid contribution to mankind, as opposed to the ravings of some whackjob who managed to swindle a PhD from somewhere. There is almost always some person who will support whatever whacked out position you want to prove. Don't belive Clinton was corrupt (despite his admitting lying to a grand jury [and if there was nothing wrong with what he was doing, why did he lie?] and being disbarred temporarily, or the whitewater land deals)? Here's a link to a article:
Clinton's corruption
here's another:
More obvious Clinton Corruption
One has news in the title, and the other even has .org!
Those clearly show that beyond a doubt, Clinton was corrupt! Did I check into their validity? No, why should I, they share my views, obviously they are right. And don't try to resort to the old attack of attacking the sources, that won't play. Debate the issue of Clinton's corruptness, that's whats important.
This is a politics board, and much of political science cannot be proven to a scientific certainty, so duelling experts really gets people nowhere. And where is the cries for references for the hundreds of "bUsHwOrLd is teh suxx0rz, no blud 4 oil!!!11!1!!" opinions that populate the board?
More on topic, I think Howard Dean will do an ok job as head of the DNC. He could help more moderate talking candidates by being an extreme example to run to the middle of. He will also probably give the Dems more direction on their more nat'l races then Bush sucks. And if he can keep his fundraising base (and the laws don't change again) he can implement his strategies to help more local races get cash. The only negative I see is him being too much involved in policy decisions and antagonizing some current dem leadership, and giving the GOP a poster boy for the "radical left".