Thank you for assuming that only the absence of bias confirms the truth. none of those organizations have any reason to sugarcoat the clinton presidency. Media matters, commondreams (although you may have a point there)
That is my only point.
I also don't care if you have looked up Ad hominem enough on wikipedia to feel comfortable using it in conversation.
Insult my intelligence all you like. It does nothing to serve, and only really diminishes, your argument.
As far as the rest of your post, look, I think it's a waste of time to start playing some silly cat-and-mouse game about who did what and when, and I don't care enough to go down that road. Both presidents were/are obviously corrupt, and those in the future probably will be as well. It's really just come to be expected these days.
My only point is that if you are going to cite sources to bolster an argument, it's probably a good idea to use the most credible sources available. Take the converse for a second-if I were to argue against stem cell research (which, incidentally, I wouldn't,) would it be a good idea for me to start referencing "facts" from [religious conservative website that I'm not going to bother googling for] as "evidence" for my argument? I think not, and if I were to, don't try to pretend that you wouldn't be inclined to dismiss it out of hand simply because of the source. I call someone out for doing just this kind of thing, and somehow it makes me a Limbaugh-parroting hatemonger? Just a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
So why not just use the original article? Think about the contrary...if someone were to start referencing some conservative websites to bolster an argument, would you not immediately call the credibility of those sources into question? Sure you would. That's all I'm saying.
Also, I find it amazing that you've been able to psychically figure out what my opinion is on this issue.
Thank you for so completely missing the point. Those sources aren't CNN or ABC or the New York Times, et al. They are ADMITTEDLY liberal media sources. Too bad that you were too busy deciding that I'm a Rush listener and breaking out Protonk's Big Box of Ad Hominem Attacks to actually read what I was saying.
Don't you get it? It passes the/bot Vista == evil test, therefore it's automatically front page material! Honestly, this site is really starting to get pathetic with the knee-jerk robotic assaults on Microsoft.
Funny, but that's also a perfect example. It reminds me of the wars that were (are?) going on with the various flavors of NetNanny software, where, IIRC, some gay/lesbian groups were pressuring the manufacturers to place the websites of various right-wing religious groups on the blacklists, and vice-versa.
There should be an ICANN website where you veto typosquatters - that is, the squatter sites would be removed from the TLD as soon as they get enough votes.
No, because in a matter of minutes after that policy went into effect, [political group] would start the underground ballot stuffing campaign to remove the TLD for [rival political group]. There are a thousand other ways that this would be abused, pick your favorite.
Gee, what a shocker. When's the last time you saw a submission that was pro-Microsoft get past the editor-bots? Me neither. However, if Bill Gates so much as looks at someone funny, it's guaranteed to be front-page news here. Kinda sad, really.
Sorry, but you intended to return it from the very start. The lame excuse that the camera sucked does nothing to change that fact, and really just makes you seem like that much more of a tool.
Slashdot Mirror
That's true. This is just the final nail in the coffin.
The day that 'Do No Evil' officially died for good.
Just out of curiosity, what model of BMW do you have?
And that country would be...
I'm waiting...waiting....
That is my only point.
Insult my intelligence all you like. It does nothing to serve, and only really diminishes, your argument.
As far as the rest of your post, look, I think it's a waste of time to start playing some silly cat-and-mouse game about who did what and when, and I don't care enough to go down that road. Both presidents were/are obviously corrupt, and those in the future probably will be as well. It's really just come to be expected these days.
My only point is that if you are going to cite sources to bolster an argument, it's probably a good idea to use the most credible sources available. Take the converse for a second-if I were to argue against stem cell research (which, incidentally, I wouldn't,) would it be a good idea for me to start referencing "facts" from [religious conservative website that I'm not going to bother googling for] as "evidence" for my argument? I think not, and if I were to, don't try to pretend that you wouldn't be inclined to dismiss it out of hand simply because of the source. I call someone out for doing just this kind of thing, and somehow it makes me a Limbaugh-parroting hatemonger? Just a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
So why not just use the original article? Think about the contrary...if someone were to start referencing some conservative websites to bolster an argument, would you not immediately call the credibility of those sources into question? Sure you would. That's all I'm saying.
Also, I find it amazing that you've been able to psychically figure out what my opinion is on this issue.
Thank you for so completely missing the point. Those sources aren't CNN or ABC or the New York Times, et al. They are ADMITTEDLY liberal media sources. Too bad that you were too busy deciding that I'm a Rush listener and breaking out Protonk's Big Box of Ad Hominem Attacks to actually read what I was saying.
What, real information, you mean like the sort of reliable, unbiased journalism we can expect from sites like commondreams.org and thinkprogress.org?
Umm...yeah, I think I'll pass, thanks.
You mean, like a...wait for it...world government? The closest thing we have now is the UN, and look how well that is working out.
But but but...Algore's gotta eat! Eradicate that layer, and he'll have to find some other irrational mass public fear to turn into cold hard cash!
Don't you get it? It passes the /bot Vista == evil test, therefore it's automatically front page material! Honestly, this site is really starting to get pathetic with the knee-jerk robotic assaults on Microsoft.
My excuse is not being able to get out of my f@#$ing Sprint contract without forking over another $200.
Funny, but that's also a perfect example. It reminds me of the wars that were (are?) going on with the various flavors of NetNanny software, where, IIRC, some gay/lesbian groups were pressuring the manufacturers to place the websites of various right-wing religious groups on the blacklists, and vice-versa.
There should be an ICANN website where you veto typosquatters - that is, the squatter sites would be removed from the TLD as soon as they get enough votes.
No, because in a matter of minutes after that policy went into effect, [political group] would start the underground ballot stuffing campaign to remove the TLD for [rival political group]. There are a thousand other ways that this would be abused, pick your favorite.
No. They are not Microsoft. You must be new here.
so I'm not sure this robot thing is a good idea at all.
Look how well it worked out on Caprica....
That's not what I've heard on Slashdot.
Gee, what a shocker. When's the last time you saw a submission that was pro-Microsoft get past the editor-bots? Me neither. However, if Bill Gates so much as looks at someone funny, it's guaranteed to be front-page news here. Kinda sad, really.
...you'll single-handedly kick the War on Drugs' ass.
As well as the kudzu problem....
Sorry, but you intended to return it from the very start. The lame excuse that the camera sucked does nothing to change that fact, and really just makes you seem like that much more of a tool.
On Mars, email is only for old people.
...I guess that makes Mansquito a documentary, then?
really, go search on brian reid - it may turn your view around about 'the beloved google'
Should I do a Google search on him?
...otherwise known as *the Sun*. I mean, can we get just a little more pretentious?
Because otherwise, things like this happen.
...and, as if on cue, rounded off with a made-to-order ad hominem attack. Correction: let's make that two-fer a hat trick!