This cant be true

[RLENT]

cl,

You pretty much nailed here it on this one.

I posted a link to the text of the actual CIA document (one which has been reproduced in a great many places on the web - a fact easily verifiable if one just bothers to make the slightest effort)

Then I posted a link to site that hosts scans of the original documents themselves ....

And the only thing Boobie can come up with is that it's hosted by a government watchdog group - as if that in itself calls into question the veracity of the documents themself - that is part of, or a affiliated with, what he deems to be a "liberal" school ... all while ignoring the GWU has notable faculty and alumni that are decidedly not liberal - like say, oh I don't know .... current House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (alumni) .... or John Foster Dulles (alumni) .... or former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace (alumni) ... or Dana Perino, former White House Press Secretary in the George W. Bush Administration (faculty) ...

Of course, that's just a logical fallacy - the type of thing that someone often attempts to use when they have no other way to refute what they are arguing against.

His responses, for the most part, pretty much speak for themselves ... and their silence is largely deafening.

 

[cheri1122]

Um, how come any source/site referred to as a 'government watchdog' is presumed to be liberal/leftist? Don't conservatives care about what the government is actually doing? [Info that won't be found on any 'MSM' site]

 

[greg334]

What I find odd is that the same document that the NYT has is at GWU in the sanctioned National Security Agency Archives. Kind of odd if it wasn't true or had any truth to it, what makes it notable enough to be in that archives?

 

[RLENT]

What I find odd is that the same document that the NYT has is at GWU in the sanctioned National Security Agency Archives. Kind of odd if it wasn't true or had any truth to it, what makes it notable enough to be in that archives?

That just proves it's part of the VLWC (aka Vast Left-wing Conspiracy) to besmirch the honor of those anti-democratic statist criminal thugs ..... err, I mean ... those kind, compassionate, and honorable patriots .... who are just seeking to help out the poor backwards peoples of other lands.

How could they ever possibly survive .... if it were not for our "help" ?

 

[Pilgrim]

Now the question is: Is there any data whatsoever that could lend validity to the views that Mr. Bahnsen claims Lew Rockwell holds ? ...... leaving aside for the moment the fact that what Mr. Bahnsen claims are Lew Rockwell's views, are simply Bahnsen's characterization of them, and are, in fact, largely just an ad hominem attack Lew Rockwell, and an attempt to tar Ron Paul through his association with Lew Rockwell ..... which of course is a logical fallacy ..... something the author freely and unashamedly confesses to, right in the article when he says the following:

"I want to start my indictment of Ron Paul where I will surely end it: With the linking of Ron Paul to the American fanatical lunatic, Lew Rockwell. It is dangerous ground when one seeks to take down a person by simply associating him with someone else. As we all know, it is actually a logical fallacy of the first order."

Of course, the Turkey Choker, being the very honest fellow that he is, made sure to include that second sentence containing the author's confession in his selective quoting

..... Wha ? .... oh wait ..... nevermind .... he didn't include it .... he purposefully left it out ....

...but purposefully included the link to the entire article where any and all could read the whole thing including that complete paragraph. Note the LAST SENTENCE which you have conveniently omitted in your rant, but was actually included in my post.
"I want to start my indictment of Ron Paul where I will surely end it: With the linking of Ron Paul to the American fanatical lunatic, Lew Rockwell. It is dangerous ground when one seeks to take down a person by simply associating him with someone else. As we all know, it is actually a logical fallacy of the first order. But Ron Paul is not merely “associated” with Lew Rockwell; he is Lew Rockwell. And he makes no attempt to deny this or cover it up."

This paragraph takes on a different context when presented in it's entirety doesn't it? Instead of being self-contradictory it clarifies the viewpoint he's taking. But when you're busy misrepresenting something that someone else posted, why bother with details? The following paragraph in the article offers the reader a challenge to check out Rockwell's website and draw his own conclusions regarding it's content. Notice that Bahnsen isn't making the claim that all the writings there are Rockwell's; but that's somewhat irrelevant since it's Rockwell's website he's responsible for its content.

"I encourage those of you who are wondering what I am talking about to go spend some time at http://www.LewRockwell.com. It is one of the most insidious properties in the entire web universe. I believe that those of you who are in that camp of Ron Paul followers I am trying to reach may conclude that Ron Paul does not deserve to be linked to Lew, but I do not believe you will attempt to defend this man and his extremist and vile views. My challenge is this: Go spend ten minutes on Lew’s website every day for one month, and then decide if you have the stomach to support Ron Paul. In that month you are likely to hear that Winston Churchill was a worse war criminal than Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler. You will hear celebration that Tony Snow died of cancer (because he did, after all, support the Iraq war). You will find out that Lew believes the Constitution is a statist document. You will read that the men and women serving our military are despicable little immoral creatures, trained to kill innocent parties. I do not need to rhetorically beat up on Lew; he will be his own best accuser. The man is insane, and the only possible justification for someone supporting Ron Paul after becoming familiar with Lew Rockwell is that one just does not believe that the two are one and the same. But this is an irrefutable fact."

It's up to each individual to decide whether or not they want to spend the time going on this little adventure - but anyone who wants to bother will find some pretty incredible stuff. In ten minutes I found the following (my emphasis added):

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif] "The U.S. presidency is the world's leading evil. It is the chief mischief-maker in every part of the globe, the leading wrecker of nations, the usurer behind third-world debt, the bailer-out of corrupt governments, the hand in many dictatorial gloves, the sponsor and sustainer of the New World Order, of wars, interstate and civil, of famine and disease. To see the evils caused by the presidency, look no further than Iraq or Serbia, where the lives of innocents were snuffed out in pointless wars, where bombing was designed to destroy civilian infrastructure and cause disease, and where women, children, and the aged have been denied essential food and medicine because of a cruel embargo. Look at the human toll taken by the presidency, from Dresden and Hiroshima to Waco and Ruby Ridge, and you see a prime practitioner of murder by government.[/FONT]"
Down With the Presidency

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Consider what the U.S. has been responsible for thus far in Iraq. Not only has the U.S. boycott kept food and medicine from getting into the country. Not only have the trade sanctions prevented average Iraqis from making any kind of life for themselves or even feeding their children. But the U.S. deliberately bombed sewage treatment plants around the country to poison the water supply with deadly bacteria. Credible estimates suggest that more than a million people, half of them children, have died of dysentery and other preventable diseases, as well as of malnutrition and starvation, since the end of the war.[/FONT]"
Catholics, Iraq, and Just War

Of course there are more, like Laurence Vance's tasteless little blurb on Tony Snow - but this reply is too long already.

Well Turkey, looks like no "honest broker" status for you today either .....
And of course, all of the above is even more ironic and hilarious (to say nothing of being utterly hypocritical) when one considers that it was posted by someone who not but a couple of days ago was literally squealing about lack of civility, ad hominem attacks, yada-yada-yada ....

Once again, you're misrepresenting what I posted - but without that your arguments don't have a foundation do they? Since it's obvious you get easily confused, I'll just offer this brief clarification: it's common practice in this forum for most everyone to discuss the content of the posts without getting into personal insults - I realize this must be hard for you to understand how to separate the two. Secondly, public figures like Ron Paul, Rockwell, Bush, Obama - by the very nature of their position are open to ad hominem attacks because it just goes with the territory. My position in that particular post was to point out an article and let people read it and let them form their own opinions about Rockwell, regardless what I and others may think.

 

[Turtle]

This paragraph takes on a different context when presented in it's entirety doesn't it?

Not really. A logical fallacy is still a logical fallacy regardless of how badly the author feels the need to justify it. The last line really doesn't change any of that, other than, perhaps, to make it worse.

Instead of being self-contradictory it clarifies the viewpoint he's taking.

Well no, it's not contradictory in any way, it's merely hitting harder on the fallacy to obfuscate it, or in the minds of the readers, to dismiss the fallacy outright. An obfuscation is hardly a clarification, but the use of such literary tactics can sometimes make it seem so.

 

[Pilgrim]

An obfuscation is hardly a clarification, but the use of such literary tactics can sometimes make it seem so.

OK, I'll go along with that to a certain extent. But the point the author is making is that Paul and Rockwell are closely associated and share a lot of common viewpoints. He does offer the reader a suggestion to visit Rockwell's website, investigate its content and make an informed decision about Rockwell. Personally, I think this is a reasonable proposition. But there's also the question as to why Paul would associate himself with a controversial website like Rockwell's if he wants to run for a national public office, considering the intense scrutiny that comes with that task.

 

[aristotle]

Ron Paul will be forgotten in a matter of weeks or months.

 

[tbubster]

What I find odd is that the same document that the NYT has is at GWU in the sanctioned National Security Agency Archives. Kind of odd if it wasn't true or had any truth to it, what makes it notable enough to be in that archives?

Are you for real?Who are they sanctioned by?Using the word SANCTIONED is kinda like saying they are a form of a government angency.THEY ARE NOT SO AGAIN WHO ARE THEY SANCTIONED BY.If they were in fact SANCTIONED they would not have to get much of their info by using FOIA even sueing


About the National Security Archive

National Security Archive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


SO the guy who uses wikipedia as his source of info and presents them in a way as if they are facts.(Even though I proved in this thread anybody can edit and post what ever they want on the links he used)The guy who thinks the US GOVERNMENT BLEW UP THE WORLD TRADE CENTER and the guy who thinks AMERICA IS WEAK AND STUPID all agree IM wrong.WOW what a suprise

With that said I am done playing the game on this thread.I have sais all I have to say on it.

 

[greg334]

Well there is a specific reason for that word and that paragraph in the form I used. Someone else got it, you may not.

By the way, if wikipedia is so bad, what use it at all?

 

[skyraider]

Well there is a specific reason for that word and that paragraph in the form I used. Someone else got it, you may not.

By the way, if wikipedia is so bad, what use it at all?

#### Exactly, why use it , anyone can edit it, so what good is it anyway, see below, right from their site.
FAQ


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to Wikipedia, which anyone can edit.#########

Help index: Ask questions ·Learn wikicode ·View FAQ ·Read Glossary ·
Live Wikipedia editing-related help via web chat ·Help desk ·Reference desk ·Tutorial

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Shortcut:
WP:FAQ

FAQ Index | FAQ | Overview | Readers | Schools | Organizations | Contributing | Editing | Administration | Technical | Problems | Article subjects | Categories | Copyright | Forking | Miscellaneous

This is a list of frequently asked questions about using and contributing to Wikipedia. For factual and other kinds of questions, use the search box or the Reference desk. If your question is not answered on this page, use the search box above, browse the various FAQ pages or perform a search on the Help desk archives.

Contents
[hide] 1 How do I create a new page?
2 Why was my article deleted?
3 How do I change the name of an article?
4 How do I change my username/delete my account?
5 How do I cite Wikipedia?
6 When was Wikipedia last published?
7 Who writes the articles on Wikipedia?
8 Who owns Wikipedia?
9 Why am I having trouble logging in?
10 Are page hit counters available?





How do I create a new page?
You are required to have a Wikipedia account to create a new article— you can register here. To see other benefits to creating an account, see Why create an account? For creating a new article see Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Article development; and you may wish to try the Article Wizard. For creating a new page in your userspace see How do I create a user subpage?; or use the Article Wizard, which has an option for that. Make sure that there is enough context and it is notable.
Why was my article deleted?
The best way to find out is to look at the deletion log for reasons (type the exact name of the article in the Title box, including the capitalization you used). For more information, see: Why was my page deleted?
How do I change the name of an article?
You move the article using the "move" button (to the right of the "edit this page" button). But in order to do this you must have an account that has reached autoconfirmed status, meaning it must be at least four days old and have made at least ten edits. If you are not an autoconfirmed user, or the move is controversial, or the page you wish to rename is move protected, visit Wikipedia:Requested moves. You may also request to have an admin grant you confirmed status.
How do I change my username/delete my account?
For changing your username see Wikipedia:Changing username. A username cannot be deleted. If a username was deleted, all the edits made by the user could not be properly attributed. You can, however, change your username, and request that your userpage be deleted by placing {{db-user}} on the top of the page. See also Wikipedia:Right to vanish.
How do I cite Wikipedia?
See Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia for details.
When was Wikipedia last published?
Wikipedia is not a printed encyclopedia. If you are asking this question because you wanted to cite a certain revision of a Wikipedia article, you can see the page Citing Wikipedia.
Who writes the articles on Wikipedia?
Almost all articles on Wikipedia are written by multiple editors, not just one. If you click on the "View history" tab at the top of an article, a list will be displayed of all the contributors to the article and when their contribution was made. If your purpose is to cite Wikipedia, see the question above. See Who writes Wikipedia for further details.
Who owns Wikipedia?
See who owns Wikipedia for details.
Why am I having trouble logging in?
See Help:Logging in for details.
Are page hit counters available?
There is a third party site, not maintained by Wikipedia, which currently allows you to view page hit counts since December 2007. Toplists are available here though these might not be current. The built in feature to count how many times a page has been visited has been turned off for performance reasons. For more details please see Wikipedia:Technical FAQ#Can I add a page hit counter to a Wikipedia page?

 

[Turtle]

Attacking the source (Wiki) instead of refuting the referenced data in which it contains, is simply yet another example of a logical fallacy. To do so means you must put yourself in the position of having to state (and believe) that everything on every Wiki page is not to be trusted, because it's on Wikipedia. And that's just absurd.

It should also be noted that, despite his proud-of-himself attempt, tbubster's Wiki vandalism was erased by a an Senior Editor at Wiki, which goes to what I said before, that no, not just anyone can go in and make edits as they please. Invalid and incorrect entries get removed, and repeated offenders get banned (and it doesn't take very many repeats), which pretty much blows the whole notion out of the water that Wiki can't be trusted simply because anyone can make edits. Valid edits can only be made within a very strict set of rules and guidelines which are enforced by the uber anals of the world. Wiki is a collection of published reference material, and just because the text of a Wiki page can be edited by anyone, albeit very short-lived in most cases, doesn't change the source data in the reference material.

 

[witness23]

 

[tbubster]

Attacking the source (Wiki) instead of refuting the referenced data in which it contains, is simply yet another example of a logical fallacy. To do so means you must put yourself in the position of having to state (and believe) that everything on every Wiki page is not to be trusted, because it's on Wikipedia. And that's just absurd.

It should also be noted that, despite his proud-of-himself attempt, tbubster's Wiki vandalism was erased by a an Senior Editor at Wiki, which goes to what I said before, that no, not just anyone can go in and make edits as they please. Invalid and incorrect entries get removed, and repeated offenders get banned (and it doesn't take very many repeats), which pretty much blows the whole notion out of the water that Wiki can't be trusted simply because anyone can make edits. Valid edits can only be made within a very strict set of rules and guidelines which are enforced by the uber anals of the world. Wiki is a collection of published reference material, and just because the text of a Wiki page can be edited by anyone, albeit very short-lived in most cases, doesn't change the source data in the reference material.

yeah I got a message from them saying I had been reported for vandalism now I wounder who could have done that?????????????Better yet why would some one do that.

despite his proud-of-himself attempt.Thats funny right there I did it to prove you wrong which I did.It would still be there today had SOMEONE NOT CRIED TO THE POWERS THAT BE.Not saying it was you dont think it was.Think it was someone else.

Greg good one,you claim it to be something that its not yet you did not answer the question.Im thinking its because you now the claim to be false.

Everyone have a good safe day out there.

 

[Turtle]

I have no idea. I would imagine any number of people who read the edit could have. All I know is that it wasn't me, because I never bothered to take the time to click the links to go look at what I (correctly) surmised was childish vandalism to make a childish point. The only reason I'm aware of the corrections to the vandalism at all is because I checked the links after 24 hours, which is just about the maximum shelf life of such vandalism (yours only lasted about 6 hours and 45 minutes, tho), to see what the edited correction was. But, if you want to think it was me who reported you, I'm fine with that, too, because now that I think about it, I wish I had. But, they have more than enough administrators and autopatroller over there (4,133 currently) who are all far more anal about that stuff than I am, and I knew it would be taken care of in short order.

despite his proud-of-himself attempt.Thats funny right there I did it to prove you wrong which I did.

Actually, no you didn't. If you edit was allowed to remain, then you'd have a point. But it wasn't, so you don't, and didn't prove anything. Like I said, invalid and incorrect entries get removed, which pretty much blows the whole notion out of the water that Wiki can't be trusted simply because anyone can make edits. Now, if you were able to edit the footnoted sources themselves, from their original published versions, then you'd have something. If you can do that, then your argument holds up.

It would still be there today had SOMEONE NOT CRIED TO THE POWERS THAT BE.

No likely, since all edits made by anyone other than an autopatrolled user are autoreported for review by a Senior Editor.

 

[tbubster]

I have no idea. I would imagine any number of people who read the edit could have. All I know is that it wasn't me, because I never bothered to take the time to click the links to go look at what I (correctly) surmised was childish vandalism to make a childish point. The only reason I'm aware of the corrections to the vandalism at all is because I checked the links after 24 hours, which is just about the maximum shelf life of such vandalism (yours only lasted about 6 hours and 45 minutes, tho), to see what the edited correction was. But, if you want to think it was me who reported you, I'm fine with that, too, because now that I think about it, I wish I had. But, they have more than enough administrators and autopatroller over there (4,133 currently) who are all far more anal about that stuff than I am, and I knew it would be taken care of in short order.

Actually, no you didn't. If you edit was allowed to remain, then you'd have a point. But it wasn't, so you don't, and didn't prove anything. Like I said, invalid and incorrect entries get removed, which pretty much blows the whole notion out of the water that Wiki can't be trusted simply because anyone can make edits. Now, if you were able to edit the footnoted sources themselves, from their original published versions, then you'd have something. If you can do that, then your argument holds up.

No likely, since all edits made by anyone other than an autopatrolled user are autoreported for review by a Senior Editor.

OH GREAT ONE you really should come down off that high horse you are on.I proved you wrong by showing in fact anyone can edit a page and you call it childish.You would have noticed that I also said I did not think it was you that reported it had you really read what I wrote.You just gotta love self righteous people.

You were proven wrong get over it already.

 

[RLENT]

Dear Boobala,

I'm glad to see that you have once again found your voice and decided to return to "the-thread-that-keeps-on-giving" to share your thoughts.

yeah I got a message from them saying I had been reported for vandalism now I wounder who could have done that?????????????

...... mebbe anyone reading here that noticed that you were shooting your mouth off, bragging that you had intentionally engaged in vandalism (which most folks actually tend to view as a form of criminal activity), simply to prove what amounts to a largely irrelevant point ?

Better yet why would some one do that.

What do you normally do when you notice someone committing intentional vandalism ...... just continue walking on by ..... while thinking all manner of happy thoughts ?

Afterall, it doesn't really have anything to do with you, right ?

despite his proud-of-himself attempt. Thats funny right there I did it to prove you wrong which I did.

Well, yeah - it was - when you did it. Hilarious actually .... though possibly not for the reasons you might guess.

Like I said: ..... small triumphs ..... enjoy 'em while ya got 'em ..... as they are often fleeting at best ....

It would still be there today had SOMEONE NOT CRIED TO THE POWERS THAT BE. Not saying it was you dont think it was. Think it was someone else.

Pity you weren't inclined to share your thoughts on the identity of the individual in this matter - that is, if you had someone in mind specifically.

Greg good one,you claim it to be something that its not yet you did not answer the question. Im thinking its because you now the claim to be false.

It's possible that you have a point ....

On the otherhand, I'm thinking mebbe ya didn't understand the intent of his comment and just didn't "get it" .....

As I've found out, often the g-man's comments are fairly nuanced ....

Everyone have a good safe day out there.

Same to ya ..... and remember: Don't take any wooden nickels !

 

[Turtle]

Your edits didn't stand up to even the most casual scrutiny, so they aren't really edits. They were childish vandalism that got erased. Non-vandalism edits without valid sourcing won't stand up, either.

Go edit a page with some falsehood, something not to be trusted and not properly or validly referenced, and then see if it stands. Don't even tell me what it is, just go do it, then a week from now let me know what you did. The timestamps will the proof.

BTW, you still haven't addressed the irrefutable fact that it's not a historian's note, but is rather a note to historians, nor have you addressed the fact that the original referenced document is word-for-word what is on Wiki and therefore should not be trusted because it's also on Wiki. You're trying to invent a straw man argument (Wiki isn't to be trusted because anyone can make an edit) to prove the referenced published documents, which no one can edit, is somehow also not to be trusted. Just because I'm not ignorant about a subject doesn't mean I'm on a high horse. The only high horse is the high horse of a misinformed notion that Wiki cannot be trusted simply by the fact that anyone can make edits, and therefore dammit you're gonna prove it come hell or high water, which is the hallmark of a wacko who cannot let the truth stand on its own. Your vandalism in no way, shape or form proved that Wiki isn't to be trusted.

Incidentally, I did read where you said you didn't think it was me who reported you, but that was not part of your original post (made at 12:38), it was part of an edit you made where you added that bit of information after you had initially posted (added at 12:50). My comments were made before you had made the addition, and I simply did not go back and change what I had already written when I did a preview refresh of my own reply, and the quoted and addressed your additions. It was perhaps an oversight on my part, but to state, "You would have noticed that I also said I did not think it was you that reported it had you really read what I wrote," is an incorrect assumption, to which incorrect conclusions followed.

 

[clcooper]

OH GREAT ONE you really should come down off that high horse you are on.I proved you wrong by showing in fact anyone can edit a page and you call it childish.You would have noticed that I also said I did not think it was you that reported it had you really read what I wrote.You just gotta love self righteous people.

You were proven wrong get over it already.

so who writes the web sites you read .??

what makes them so much creditable then anybodu else ??

or are you like the little school girl . oh i hate sally now because she is going out with john and i so like him .

come on grow up and open your minds and think . you people are so locked in your own beliefs . and wont look at any thing else .
you are like the saying cant teach old dogs new tricks .

you believe what you were taught , not what you have learned on your own .

just like when i said i feel like a black man at a KKK meeting , no matter what the KKK was not going to think any differant . they are set in their way and nothing is going to change that .

no matter what .

what does drinking the koolaid mean to you . to me it means you will follow and believe what you are told and will not think for yourself . just like the people that did drink the koolaid and died . (jamestown)the believe and worshiped that one guy and did every thing he said .they didnt think for themselfs .

Urban Dictionary: drink the kool-aid

Word Spy - drink the Kool-Aid

Where did 'Drink the Kool-Aid' come from? - msnbc tv - Documentaries - Jonestown - msnbc.com

Kool-Aid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so who should write the encyclopedia that everybody should read and believe in .

just like today everybody is worried about the Terrorist and are forgetting about the true Terrorists of the USA . the same way Hoover did with the Communists .

even thou i QUOTED tbubster this isnt meant just for him EVERYBODY

 

[witness23]

Oy Vey!!!!!