Author Topic: Interesting  (Read 1014 times)

Offline Elfenwolf

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1123
Interesting
« Reply #30 on: June 03, 2002, 09:34:38 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Tumor


Pick your side carefully Elf!!  Liberals aren't allowed to fight, especially as a group (oh the SHAME of thinking about it).  They are supposed to join hands and sing peacenik songs.  Harvey, Rude and Cabby will probably bring a Tank. :D

Oh and btw, I'll take the word of P.H. over anything I find on the www, especially when written by an obvious liberal trying to make it ok to support ridiculous things like the Black Panthers in ANY fashion.


Fight?! Who said anything about fighting? I wanted to get a good softball game going.

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
Interesting
« Reply #31 on: June 03, 2002, 09:56:34 AM »
Now this is the kind of thread we need more often. The "serious" points are even funnier than the jokes!

Now all you Tighty-Righties try to read all the words in the following paragraph. I will be happy to provide definitions for the ones that are haarrd.

Quote
So, what exactly did Mr. Lee and Ms. Clinton do to "defend" the Panthers in a legal sense? In Mr. Lee's case, he did absolutely nothing. He wasn't a lawyer, or even a law student; he was simply another Yale undergraduate who had nothing to do with the Black Panthers' trial. Ms. Clinton wasn't a lawyer then, either; she was a Yale law student. The sum total of her involvement in the trial was that she assisted the American Civil Liberties Union in monitoring the trial for civil rights violations. That a law student's tangential participation in one of the most controversial, politically and racially charged trials of her time (one that took place right on her doorstep) to help ensure it remained free of civil rights abuses is now offered as "proof" of her moral reprehensibility demonstrates that McCarthyism is alive and well -- some of us apparently believe in rights but don't believe everyone has the right to have rights.



Let me save cabby the trouble:

"Yea but they suck anyway....so who cares if its true!"

Offline Sikboy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6702
Interesting
« Reply #32 on: June 03, 2002, 10:01:14 AM »
Tah-Gut,

You need to read the whole thread before posting I think. The content of that link was invalidated via ad hominim attack. Because Snopes (one of the leading Urban Legend research sites on the net) is obviously liberal, the content of snopes.com (and presumably snopes2.com) is not of value, and the facts contained in that website are not to be used.

Once snopes was called out of play I knew this thread would be fun to watch lol.

-Sikboy
You: Blah Blah Blah
Me: Meh, whatever.

Offline Elfenwolf

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1123
Interesting
« Reply #33 on: June 03, 2002, 10:05:10 AM »
Hey Eagler, I pick Sikboy to be my center fielder. Your pick-

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
Interesting
« Reply #34 on: June 03, 2002, 10:12:25 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target
Now all you Tighty-Righties try to read all the words in the following paragraph. I will be happy to provide definitions for the ones that are haarrd.
[/b]

Fine, you brought it on yourself.

Please try not to use a dictionary, instead let us hear your definitions of the following:

"defend",  
" do nothing",
"defend in a legal sense", and  
"support"

Good luck
« Last Edit: June 03, 2002, 10:14:33 AM by Hortlund »

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
Interesting
« Reply #35 on: June 03, 2002, 10:27:24 AM »
Oh My??

Now What!??


Oh wait, I know. I won't let Mr. Lawyer change the subject or the push the debate in a direction other than whether the story is factual or not. That just might work!

Defend = Try to keep the opposition from scoring
Do-nothing = Defend as if you were France playing Senegal
Defend in a Legal sense = (See Do-nothing)
Support = That piece of equipment I need to provide a good defense, and you don't.

Snopes isn't out of play! Note the cited sources at the end of the article. And since when is Ad Hominem worth a pile a spit?

Quote
Update: Versions of the e-mailed denunciation headed "Paul Harvey's 'The rest of the story'" began circulating on the Internet in June 2000. This header plus a comment at the end of the text ("And now, as Paul Harvey says, you know the rest of the story") caused some to believe Paul Harvey had read this piece (or a shorter version of it) on air. Paul Harvey's people confirm he has never broadcast the Panthers and Hillary Clinton story.

Sources:
Brock, David. The Seduction of Hillary Rodham.
New York: Free Press, 1996. ISBN 0-684-83451-0 (pp. 30-35).

Claiborne, William. "Brewster: From Yale to the Court of St. James's."
The Washington Post. 8 April 1977 (p. B1).

Elvin, John. "Hillary Hides Her Panther Fling."
Insight. 31 July 2000.

Freed, Daniel. Agony in New Haven: The Trial of Bobby Seale, Erika Huggins, and the Black Panther Party.
New York: Simon and Schuster, 1973.

McCaslin, John. "Hillary for the Defense."
The Washington Times. 12 June 1998.

Rierden, Andi. "Once a Black Panther, Always a Cause."
The New York Times. 22 November 1992 (p. CN1).

West, Diana. "The '60s Strike Back."
The Washington Times. 5 February 1999.

Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. "Former Black Panthers Who Have Turned to Higher Education."
31 October 1998 (p. 62).

Offline Sikboy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6702
Interesting
« Reply #36 on: June 03, 2002, 10:36:08 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target

And since when is Ad Hominem worth a pile a spit?

 

It's not, but sarcasm is worth its weight in gold :)

-Sikboy
You: Blah Blah Blah
Me: Meh, whatever.

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
Interesting
« Reply #37 on: June 03, 2002, 10:51:14 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target
Oh My??

Now What!??

Oh wait, I know. I won't let Mr. Lawyer change the subject or the push the debate in a direction other than whether the story is factual or not. That just might work!

Defend = Try to keep the opposition from scoring
Do-nothing = Defend as if you were France playing Senegal
Defend in a Legal sense = (See Do-nothing)
Support = That piece of equipment I need to provide a good defense, and you don't.

Snopes isn't out of play! Note the cited sources at the end of the article. And since when is Ad Hominem worth a pile a spit?
 


Now, if you actually had bothered to read the first post on this thread and compared it to what that urban legend site is saying you would note that the urban legend site does not disprove anything. In fact it confirms most of it. Although the author of the urban legends site chooses to use other definitions of various concepts, or he chooses to put different lables on certain situations.

Basically what it all comes down to is your definition of complicated concepts such as "defend" and "support". That is why it would have been interesting to hear your definition of those words. But judging from your rather cavalearly reply here, I guess that just went right over your head or something.

Here Target, I made a mental checklist for you to go through the next time you feel the urge to make some smart-assed post.

1) Do I really know what I'm talking about ./. Do I understand what I'm saying.
2) Can I back up my arguments with facts, or am I just making statements that I really have no idea how to back up.
3) What if someone disagrees with me, what will I do then?

If you cant take the heat...

I'm sure others can help me add to this checklist.

[EDIT] You also might want to read the sources yourself next time instead of just copying some other guys list. I mean you really have no idea what those sources say now do you? Its rediculous.  
« Last Edit: June 03, 2002, 11:01:00 AM by Hortlund »

Offline Tumor

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4296
      • Wait For It
Interesting
« Reply #38 on: June 03, 2002, 10:53:38 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target
Now this is the kind of thread we need more often. The "serious" points are even funnier than the jokes!

Now all you Tighty-Righties try to read all the words in the following paragraph. I will be happy to provide definitions for the ones that are haarrd.




Let me save cabby the trouble:

"Yea but they suck anyway....so who cares if its true!"


...??  It's RIGHTY-TIGHTY ya big doofus! :D


 sigh.. and you CAN'T pile spit!  You can however spit on piles (ewwww)

Tumor
« Last Edit: June 03, 2002, 10:55:44 AM by Tumor »
"Dogfighting is useless"  :Erich Hartmann

Offline Eagler

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18804
Interesting
« Reply #39 on: June 03, 2002, 10:57:37 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
Hey Eagler, I pick Sikboy to be my center fielder. Your pick-


Hard to have a serious baseball game when the libs throw like women :)

Cabby looks like a good DH though .. that is designated hitter :)
"Masters of the Air" Scenario - JG27


Intel Core i7-13700KF | GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS Elite AX | 64GB G.Skill DDR5 | 16GB GIGABYTE RTX 4070 Ti Super | 850 watt ps | pimax Crystal Light | Warthog stick | TM1600 throttle | VKB Mk.V Rudder

Offline Krusher

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2246
Interesting
« Reply #40 on: June 03, 2002, 11:25:05 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Elfenwolf


Fight?! Who said anything about fighting? I wanted to get a good softball game going.


it sounds like you dont play drunk enough  :)

Offline Udie

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3395
Interesting
« Reply #41 on: June 03, 2002, 11:38:27 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Elfenwolf


OK, Eagler, you get Paul Harvey, Cabby and Rude and I get Thrawn, Weazel and Staga. But to make it fair because you are so hopelessly overmatched and in the intrests of fairness we'll let you have Sandman, Midnight Target and Dowding and we'll take Udie, Caligua and hblair.




 Ok I think Midnight and I are going to have to change seats. Weazel just farted and hblair is making funny noises!

Offline Sikboy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6702
Interesting
« Reply #42 on: June 03, 2002, 11:41:36 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Hortlund

Basically what it all comes down to is your definition of complicated concepts such as "defend" and "support".


Actually, The site gives a paragraph's worth of comentary on the definition of "Defend" and it's use in this article.  

But the article erroniously attributed to Mr. Harvey doesn't give you anything to work with on this matter. What did Mr. Lee and Ms. Rodam do to defend or support these guys? Buy em lunch? Pay for their prison cells via tax contributions? Not kill them outright? We don't know because we are not given any information. Why not? Because, so far as I can tell, there is no information to give. This is much ado about nothing.
 (And this from a guy who can't stand Hillary Clinton)

-Sikboy
You: Blah Blah Blah
Me: Meh, whatever.

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
Interesting
« Reply #43 on: June 03, 2002, 12:13:52 PM »
Dear Mr. Hortlund,

I have read your questions and answered them:
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Treat them with all the sincerity and wisdom they deserve.

Now. How about we cut to the chase?

 THIS WILL OPEN YOUR EYES
By Paul Harvey - Conveniently Forgotten Facts Not reported by Paul Harvey "Paul Harvey's people confirm he has never broadcast the Panthers and Hillary Clinton story. "

Back in 1969 a group of Black Panthers decided that a fellow black panther
named...Alex Rackley needed to die. Rackley was suspected of disloyalty.
Rackley was first tied to a chair. Once safely immobilized, his friends
tortured him for hours by, among other things, pouring boiling water on him. True enough

When they got tired of torturing Rackley, Black Panther member, Warren Kimbo
took Rackley outside and put a bullet in his head. Rackley's body was later
found floating in a river about 25 miles north of New Haven, Conn. Perhaps
at this point you're curious as to what happened to these Black Panthers. also true enough, some facts are left out, but not relevent ones IMHO.
"That several Black Panthers directly took part in the torture and murder of Alex Rackey is beyond dispute, and to those of us who believe that torture and murder are always wrong, no matter what the cause, their actions were morally reprehensible. "


In 1977, that's only eight years later, only one of the killers was still in jail. Now we start to leave out pertinant information. Like Kimbro was not convicted for murder! He spent 4 1/2 years in jail and was released on a State program which offered college educations to former convicts. Kimbro attended a small local University and won a scholarship to Harvard Business school where he received a masters degree.
 The shooter, Warren Kimbro, managed to get a scholarship to Harvard,
and became good friends with none other than Al Gore. He later became an
assistant dean at an Eastern Connecticut State College. Isn't that
something? As a '60s
radical you can pump a bullet into someone's head, and a few years later, in
the same state, you can become an assistant college dean! Only in America! Especially when the Government tries to convict people who didn't take part in the actual shooting and did it only for political gain.

Erica Huggins was the lady who served the Panthers by boiling the water for
Mr. Rackley's torture. Some years later Ms. Huggins was elected to a
California School Board. How in the world do you think these killers got off
so easy? Maybe
it was in some part due to the efforts of two people who came to the defense Is this what you are using as your point Hortlund? The word Defense? Read the article, and tell me which "defense" is implied here.

"We often find it necessary, in order to preserve and protect our rights, to defend (in a legal sense) those whose actions we consider morally wrong, and to defend (in a moral sense) those who actions we find legally wrong. We sometimes let criminals go free because constitutional safeguards were violated in the process of bringing them to justice. That doesn't mean we condone their crimes; it means we're willing to "defend" their rights in order to preserve a higher moral principle (i.e., the rights that protect all of us)."


of the Panthers. These two people actually went so far as to shut down Yale
University with demonstrations in defense of the accused Black Panthers
during their trial.
Since your point was that the Snopes article backed up "most" of the first post in the thread, I will stick to quoting Snopes.

"Classes were made optional when 12,000 Panther supporters swarmed the campus in protest, and the president of Yale University himself, Kingman Brewster Jr., announced: "I personally want to say that I'm appalled and ashamed that things should have come to such a pass that I am skeptical of the ability of Black revolutionaries to achieve a fair trial anywhere in the U.S." To lay the entire responsibility for this massive, widespread protest on the shoulders of two Yale students is just silly, all the more so because nobody has offered evidence that either one of them led, or even participated in, any student demonstrations or protests in support of the Black Panthers."
 


One of these people was none other than Bill Lan Lee. Mr. Lee, or Mr. Lan
Lee, as the case may be, isn't a college dean. He isn't a member of a
California School Board. He is now head of the US Justice Department's Civil
Rights Division, appointed by none other than Bill Clinton. The fact that Mr. Lee was a member of the justice department is not in question, his "defense" of the Panthers and the fact that he was one of the "two people actually went so far as to shut down Yale University with demonstrations" WRONG!

"So, what exactly did Mr. Lee and Ms. Clinton do to "defend" the Panthers in a legal sense? In Mr. Lee's case, he did absolutely nothing. He wasn't a lawyer, or even a law student; he was simply another Yale undergraduate who had nothing to do with the Black Panthers' trial. "


O.K., so who was the other Panther defender? The other Panther defender
was, like Lee, a radical law student at Yale University at the time. We have just shown that Lee was NOT a law student She is now known as The "smartest woman in the world." She is none other than the Democratic senator from the State of New York----our former First Lady, the incredible Hillary Rodham Clinton. Panther defender? Maybe defender of constitutional rights. Hardly a Panther defender, and hardly "the other" Panther defender.

"Ms. Clinton wasn't a lawyer then, either; she was a Yale law student. The sum total of her involvement in the trial was that she assisted the American Civil Liberties Union in monitoring the trial for civil rights violations. "


And now, as Paul Harvey said; You know "the rest of the story". Well, there he goes again