Hannibal's guide to "Conservative Sources"

Started by Hannibal

This political chat room is for you to sound off about any political ideology and discuss current political topics. Everyone is welcome, yes, even conservatives, but keep in mind, the nature of the No Holds Barred political chat forum platform can be friendly to trolling. It is your responsibility to address this wisely. Forum Rules

PreviousNext
98 replies to this topic Sticky this thread

User avatar
Posted by Hannibal
  29 08 Jan 2014, 7:12 pm

Hannibal User avatar
Telephone Bossman

Posts: 798
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 28.92



Log in or register to remove this ad..
0
Log in or register to remove this ad..

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  13,280 08 Jan 2014, 9:25 pm

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 70,921
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 13,280.06



golfboy » 08 Jan 2014 4:10 pm wrote:

I've been quoting quite extensively the last few days from the NY Times.
Who's lapdog are they, and who's agenda do they promote?


You are actually BRAGGING that you use untrustworthy sources?

That is your actual ARGUMENT?

You're special, son.
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  13,280 08 Jan 2014, 9:26 pm

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 70,921
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 13,280.06



golfboy » 08 Jan 2014 4:15 pm wrote:
Oh no! the CFR!!!
You need to loosen up the strap on your tinfoil hat, buddy.


I know. Everyone knows the CFR doesn't exist. Just check their website.
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  13,280 08 Jan 2014, 9:29 pm

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 70,921
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 13,280.06



SallyForth » 08 Jan 2014 4:38 pm wrote:

Well then, we're all, on both sides, being taken for a ride.


Hannibal » 08 Jan 2014 4:42 pm wrote:

This has always been my main contention.


And that is why Goofy is devolving to smirking about tin foil, because you are not playing the dem v. repub game - the only one the little hack is comfortable with. You expose his sources, so he complains about what he PRETENDS are "your" sources.

He is dishonest, has no manhood, and will always be exposed as a hack whenever he debates an honest poster. He's still screeching, "Bush won! Bush won!" all over the board.

That's Goofy.
0

User avatar
Posted by Nubber
  1,191 08 Jan 2014, 9:35 pm

Nubber User avatar
Fluffy Bunny O.G.!
Fluffy Bunny O.G.!

Posts: 978
Anarchist Anarchist political affiliation
Politics: Anarchist
Money: 1,190.59



golfboy » 08 Jan 2014 4:15 pm wrote:
Hannibal » 08 Jan 2014 4:13 pm wrote:

The Elite agenda, just like all other state run propaganda mills. There is more to be posted soon, fear not, I will get to them too, especially since you are implying that they are "A reliable source". Keep squirming and wriggling. Remember, you don't know who the CFR are, yet their kool-aid leaks from YOUR ass all over this forum. :ninja:

Oh no! the CFR!!!
You need to loosen up the strap on your tinfoil hat, buddy.


Golfboy, you need to come to the realization that there is more than one coin with two sides to every issue/argument and that the one coin you always see is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
0

Brattle Street's Photo
Posted by Brattle Street
  15,017 08 Jan 2014, 9:58 pm

Brattle Street       
      

Posts: 14,222
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 15,016.51



Nubber » 08 Jan 2014 8:35 pm wrote:

Golfboy, you need to come to the realization that there is more than one coin with two sides to every issue/argument and that the one coin you always see is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

his is not to reason through
his is to regurg the spew
0

User avatar
Posted by Hannibal
  29 08 Jan 2014, 10:29 pm

Hannibal User avatar
Telephone Bossman

Posts: 798
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 28.92



Info on The New York Times as a Source
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1910#p141713
0

User avatar
Posted by GeorgeWashington
  -19,850 08 Jan 2014, 10:55 pm

GeorgeWashington User avatar
      
      

Posts: 5,646
Location: Mount Vernon, VA
Revolutionary Revolutionary political affiliation
Politics: Revolutionary
Gender: Male
Money: -19,850.28

Do you think you can dig up something on the "economists" responsible for this: FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate?
0

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
  18,451 08 Jan 2014, 11:24 pm

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17,321
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Money: 18,451.35

Hannibal » 08 Jan 2014 3:55 pm wrote:
RichClem » 07 Jan 2014 12:14 pm wrote:
Which of the following sources aren't solid? WSJ oped page, IBD, National Review, Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, American Spectator?


I thought that this was a rare instance of Clem asking a valid question. It inspired me to do a LITTLE research. What I found inspired me to do far more then a "Little" research. :shock: Below is a portion of what I have compiled and there is more on the way. What I found the "The fourth estate' has become nothing but a wing of the government, which was bought and paid for by the "Ownership class". I was tired of these being sited as SEPARATE "JOURNALISTIC" "SOURCES". They are not, they are a collection of zealots, ideologues, supply siders, war criminals, plutocrats, former Bush administration members and their various "Mouth pieces".


.

:rofl:

You know, rather than waste your time putting together conspiracy theories, why don't you just read them and consider their ideas?

It won't hurt, you know. :\
0

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
  18,451 08 Jan 2014, 11:27 pm

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17,321
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Money: 18,451.35

Hannibal » 08 Jan 2014 4:22 pm wrote:
golfboy » 08 Jan 2014 4:15 pm wrote:
Oh no! the CFR!!!
You need to loosen up the strap on your tinfoil hat, buddy.


Everybody note the use of the above Ad Hominem. Its very telling. An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Please explain to us why you spread government supplied lies all day every day :!: :ninja:


.

Which is exactly what you did to very credible people and organizations, on the basis of little, except your wild paranoia. :\
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  13,280 09 Jan 2014, 12:05 am

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 70,921
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 13,280.06



RichClem » 08 Jan 2014 10:24 pm wrote:

.

:rofl:

You know, rather than waste your time putting together conspiracy theories, why don't you just read them and consider their ideas?

It won't hurt, you know. :\


Please tell us what "conspiracy theories" you are talking about?

Goofy ran the "tinfoil hat" meme, and you jumped aboard like a trained ape. I want to laugh.

What "conspiracy theories" are we laughing at?
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  13,280 09 Jan 2014, 12:06 am

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 70,921
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 13,280.06



RichClem » 08 Jan 2014 10:27 pm wrote:

.

Which is exactly what you did to very credible people and organizations, on the basis of little, except your wild paranoia. :\


Link?

Show us him doing that.
0

User avatar
Posted by Hannibal
  29 09 Jan 2014, 12:18 am

Hannibal User avatar
Telephone Bossman

Posts: 798
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 28.92



RichClem » 08 Jan 2014 10:24 pm wrote:

.

:rofl:

You know, rather than waste your time putting together conspiracy theories, why don't you just read them and consider their ideas?

It won't hurt, you know. :\


You stated the following....

RichClem » 07 Jan 2014 12:14 pm wrote:
Which of the following sources aren't solid? WSJ oped page, IBD, National Review, Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, American Spectator?


O.k. Clem. I REFUTED your claim that these sources were "Solid". I supported my claim with sources and links and accurate information some from THEIR OWN SITES. You are using opinion pieces put out by government officials form the administration in question. (THE SUBJECT WAS THE GULF WAR) Not only are your sources not "Solid" they aren't "Sources", they are "a source", THE VERY GROUP RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WAR. I DO understand them, I have read their Ideas and I know who they are. They (all your sources) are the same damned people !! They all work for or are directly supervised by former Bush administration officials.

Time to pay the piper you lying halfwit. I supported my claims, time for you to support yours :!:


How is it a "Conspiracy" ? We need more than your "Opinion" you bullshiter.


How is it a "Theory" ? who they are isn't in question. I demonstrated exactly who they are. All you do is opine with nothing to back up your claims. I provided links to their own sites. Prove I'm wrong. We need more than your "Opinion" you bullshiter. Back up your claims or shut the fuck up Clem. :\
Last edited by Hannibal on 09 Jan 2014, 12:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
0

User avatar
Posted by Hannibal
  29 09 Jan 2014, 12:24 am

Hannibal User avatar
Telephone Bossman

Posts: 798
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 28.92



RichClem » 08 Jan 2014 10:27 pm wrote:

.

Which is exactly what you did to very credible people and organizations, on the basis of little, except your wild paranoia. :\


Stating their record is relevant. I did not "Insult" any of them. I simply pointed out their work history and affiliations. Most of this information they put out themselves and I retrieved directly from them. Point out my "Ad Hominem attacks". Show us an example or admit you are AGAIN LYING. Where is your proof. Give us a quote or a link. YOUR OPINION COUNTS FOR NOTHING. Use verifiable facts as I did or shut the fuck up because you lose.
0

User avatar
Posted by Hannibal
  29 09 Jan 2014, 12:26 am

Hannibal User avatar
Telephone Bossman

Posts: 798
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 28.92



GeorgeWashington » 08 Jan 2014 9:55 pm wrote:
Do you think you can dig up something on the "economists" responsible for this: FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate?


Not sure, pretty likely though. I will get back yo you after I dig a bit. :geek:
0

User avatar
Posted by MotherJonses
  5,574 09 Jan 2014, 2:04 am

MotherJonses User avatar
Moderator
Moderator

Posts: 2,850
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 5,574.47

Really Glory hole and Goofy that is the best you can do? Glory hole, he decimated your sources and all you can do is say "but I like what they say, won't you drink the Kool-Aid too" Pathetic, truly pathetic.
0

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
  18,451 09 Jan 2014, 8:43 am

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17,321
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Money: 18,451.35

Hannibal » 08 Jan 2014 11:18 pm wrote:
RichClem » 08 Jan 2014 10:24 pm wrote:
:rofl:

You know, rather than waste your time putting together conspiracy theories, why don't you just read them and consider their ideas?

It won't hurt, you know. :\


You stated the following....

RichClem » 07 Jan 2014 12:14 pm wrote:
Which of the following sources aren't solid? WSJ oped page, IBD, National Review, Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, American Spectator?


O.k. Clem. I REFUTED your claim that these sources were "Solid". I supported my claim with sources and links and accurate information some from THEIR OWN SITES. You are using opinion pieces put out by government officials form the administration in question. (THE SUBJECT WAS THE GULF WAR) Not only are your sources not "Solid" they aren't "Sources", they are "a source", THE VERY GROUP RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WAR.


You didn't refute anything. You simply exposed your paranoid psychosis. :\

People with common views network on both left and right, and in any part of society. That doesn't mean they don't honestly hold the opinions they express.

Prove I'm wrong. We need more than your "Opinion" you bullshiter. Back up your claims or shut the fuck up Clem. :\.


I don't waste much time with the mentally ill. :loco:

I've read these sources for decades, compared them to others, and rarely found anything to question.
0

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
  18,451 09 Jan 2014, 8:50 am

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17,321
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Money: 18,451.35

Hannibal » 08 Jan 2014 11:18 pm wrote:
RichClem » 08 Jan 2014 10:24 pm wrote:
:rofl:

You know, rather than waste your time putting together conspiracy theories, why don't you just read them and consider their ideas?

It won't hurt, you know. :\


O.k. Clem. I REFUTED your claim that these sources were "Solid". I supported my claim with sources and links and accurate information some from THEIR OWN SITES. ....

Prove I'm wrong. We need more than your "Opinion" you bullshiter. Back up your claims or shut the fuck up Clem. :\


Let's take the following excerpt:

David S. Addington is group vice president for research at The Heritage Foundation. David Spears Addington was legal counsel(2001–2005)and chief of staff(2005–2009)to Vice President Dick Cheney. During 21 years of federal service, Addington worked at the CIA, the Reagan White House, the Department of Defense,
four congressional committees, and the Cheney Office of the Vice President. He was appointed to replace I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Jr. as Cheney's chief of staff upon Libby's resignation when Libby was indicted on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice on October 28, 2005. Addington was an assistant general counsel for the Central Intelligence Agency from 1981 to 1984. From 1984 to 1987 he was counsel for the House committees on intelligence and foreign affairs. news articles have said that he was one of the principal authors of a controversial minority report issued at the conclusion of the joint committee's investigation, which "defended President Reagan by claiming it was 'unconstitutional for Congress to pass laws intruding' on the 'commander in chief.'"


First, so what that he worked for Reagan or Cheney? If you want an expert on, say, the Cold War, would you hire someone from leftist academia? From the liberal MSM? From the sugar industry?

No, you'd hire someone who actually worked in defense of the country during that period.

You foolishly assume that just because he worked in government or for Reagan or Cheney that he isn't a person of integrity. How freaking stupid. You have absolutely no evidence to support your assumption.

Lots of people of very high integrity played important roles in the defense of the country, leaving better jobs of higher pay to work in government, or working in government for most of their life, when they could have done better in the private sector.

Further, your source made a stupid error implicitly criticizing him for writing that minority report.


Boland himself admitted later that his own Boland Amendment was very likely unConstitutional. :clap:

So out of this citation, what is your point, other than to express your paranoia and bad judgment?
0

User avatar
Posted by Hannibal
  29 09 Jan 2014, 9:05 am

Hannibal User avatar
Telephone Bossman

Posts: 798
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 28.92



RichClem » 09 Jan 2014 7:50 am wrote:

Let's take the following excerpt:



First, so what that he worked for Reagan or Cheney? If you want an expert on, say, the Cold War, would you hire someone from leftist academia? From the liberal MSM? From the sugar industry?

No, you'd hire someone who actually worked in defense of the country during that period.

You foolishly assume that just because he worked in government or for Reagan or Cheney that he isn't a person of integrity. How freaking stupid. You have absolutely no evidence to support your assumption.

Lots of people of very high integrity played important roles in the defense of the country, leaving better jobs of higher pay to work in government, or working in government for most of their life, when they could have done better in the private sector.

Further, your source made a stupid error implicitly criticizing him for writing that minority report.


Boland himself admitted later that his own Boland Amendment was very likely unConstitutional. :clap:

So out of this citation, what is your point, other than to express your paranoia and bad judgment?


I am not judging shit, I stated his record. You used his organization as a "Source" to back up your claims, claims THEY made about affairs THEY were accused of handling poorly. You don't expect a bank robber to say "Yeah, I did it man". This isn't about if they are "Good fellas" or not, This is about if "they are a reliable source" on the topic discussed, as it's their asses that bent the law and screwed up, I say no, they are not reliable sources on this topic. I bet most people would agree. You are trying to change what this is about, Its about your sources, stop trying to make it about their character. Changing the subject will not help you, your sources are crap. Keep on squirming Clem, I could sink your boat all day. :D

RichClem » 09 Jan 2014 7:43 am wrote:

I don't waste much time with the mentally ill. :loco:

I've read these sources for decades, compared them to others, and rarely found anything to question.


Nice job walking off getting your ass handed to you. :rofl: You won't waste the time because YOU ARE WRONG. The sources aren't reliable on the topic in question. You rarely found anything to question because you do not question your own party. Such is the nature of partisanship, You are actually dumb enough to believe that 50% of the government tells the truth ! :clap: :rofl:
0

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
  18,451 09 Jan 2014, 9:11 am

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17,321
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Money: 18,451.35

Hannibal » 09 Jan 2014 8:05 am wrote:
RichClem » 09 Jan 2014 7:50 am wrote:
Let's take the following excerpt:

First, so what that he worked for Reagan or Cheney? If you want an expert on, say, the Cold War, would you hire someone from leftist academia? From the liberal MSM? From the sugar industry?

No, you'd hire someone who actually worked in defense of the country during that period.

You foolishly assume that just because he worked in government or for Reagan or Cheney that he isn't a person of integrity. How freaking stupid. You have absolutely no evidence to support your assumption.

Lots of people of very high integrity played important roles in the defense of the country, leaving better jobs of higher pay to work in government, or working in government for most of their life, when they could have done better in the private sector.

Further, your source made a stupid error implicitly criticizing him for writing that minority report.
Boland himself admitted later that his own Boland Amendment was very likely unConstitutional. :clap:

So out of this citation, what is your point, other than to express your paranoia and bad judgment?


I am not judging shit, I stated his record. You used his organization as a "Source" to back up your claims, claims THEY made about affairs THEY were accused of handling poorly. You don't expect a bank robber to say "Yeah, I did it man". This isn't about if they are "Good fellas" or not, This is about if "they are a reliable source" on the topic discussed, as it's their asses that bent the law and screwed up, I say no, they are not reliable sources on this topic. I bet most people would agree. You are trying to change what this is about, Its about your sources, stop trying to make it about their character. Changing the subject will not help you, your sources are crap.


Of course you're judging. How freaking stupid to deny that.

So what they were accused of something? False accusations are made all the time in politics, duuh.

Bent the law? Absolutely. The country was in mortal danger during the Cold War, and the law was bent or even broken many times, as it has been many times during the history of the country when circumstances warranted.
So freaking what?

Change what this is about? It is ONLY about whether the individuals in question have integrity, and you have nothing except baseless accusations and connections you don't understand in the slightest.

Keep on squirming Clem, I could sink your boat all day. :D


You couldn't hit water if you fell out of a boat. :\
0


PreviousNext

Return to No Holds Barred Political Forum

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 0 guests

Who has visited this topic