Bill Clinton made $75 million from speeches

Biscuit said:
In which of the official investigations did experts declare it a forgery. Please link to the document.
Click to expand...

Don't know if you missed this BaC but I was hoping to continue the Foster Letter of resignation discussion.
 
The Charnel Expanse said:
oh great... now he's citing aim.org
Click to expand...
Well there are only so many outlets that would actually promote the Clinton Chronicles nonsense. Still it is funny to see how many of these sources promote the idea of a conspiracy so vast that seemingly everyone in government was out to protect Pres. Clinton even if it's wasn't politically expedient for them to do so.
 
Even Ann Coulter, who's never met an anti-Liberal/anti-Democrat smear she didn't fall in love with has gone on record saying Christopher Ruddy is a fraud. Even Richard Mellon-Scaife distanced himself from him.
You'd have to be pretty deep down the proverbial rabbit hole to still consider him credible.
 
BenBurch said:
I am. And if it does exist, it does not contain what is asserted.
Click to expand...

I agree. Its not what BaC is making it out to be. Much like everything he has been asserting.

When you approach his walls of text its rather impressive but if you break it down and focus on one claim at a time the arguments starts to crumble. I think the BET interview is about to come crashing down.
 
The Charnel Expanse said:
Even Ann Coulter, who's never met an anti-Liberal/anti-Democrat smear she didn't fall in love with has gone on record saying Christopher Ruddy is a fraud.
Click to expand...


Ann Coulter was obviously put in place by the Clinton Administration just so she could make such claims at the appropriate time. :tinfoil
 
ANTPogo said:
Didn't you start a whole thread about this once, in a vain attempt to try and defend your reasons for relying on crackpot websites like WND? In fact, almost the entire post I'm replying to was copied from this post of yours in that very thread.
Click to expand...

I repeat a lot of things on this forum, ANTPogo. Because liberals … and especially Clinton defenders … never learn anything. They rely mostly on the debating tactics in post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7372259&postcount=163 to support their belief in debates. Your post is a good example.

And it wasn't a "vain" attempt at all. My thread proved exactly what I said it proved. That your side's sources are no more reliable than those of mine that you complain so much about. You'll notice in that thread that no one actually challenged the facts that I noted about the WP and LATimes unreliability. They once again simply ignored the facts that I brought to the table.

You, for example, never directed a single post at me. You focused solely on trying to disparage WND. And, of course, your fellow believers confirmed your assessment. :rolleyes:

Now I don't deny that WND and Newsmax and the like have occasionally gotten stories wrong. Especially recently. But I've yet to find a story related to Foster, Brown, Chinagate, Filegate or Rapegate where they've been proven wrong. In the various Foster/Brown/Chinagate/Filegate/Rapegate/Etc threads here at JREF, one will notice that you and your side hardly ever attempt to dispute the specifics in the articles I use to support my assertions.

Folks on your side of this debate will instead make blanket statements about my sources being "wrong" and "CT", but they almost never even try to support that assertion with a sourced fact that challenges one of mine on the issue of concern. They simply dismiss my sources out of hand, just as you are now attempting to do after once again failing to actually discredit any of the specifics that were in my sources regarding the Brown/Foster/Chinagate/Filegate/Rapegate issues.

And 99 times out of a 100, when your side does cite a sourced fact that allegedly shows one of mine is wrong, I end up showing that your source was the one that was wrong. That your source was unreliable … that it even lied to you, if only by omission.

And that says something that should concern you.

But it doesn't, which also says something.

And what the thread you linked (and this one) prove, once again, is that I have no problem directly challenging those with whom I disagree by citing the known facts on a specific topic. I don't have to attack my opponents by going solely after the reliability of their sources. But you folks seem to have a great deal of difficulty arguing your case without doing just that … especially on subjects related to Clinton. And your post is a good example. Here you are, again, trying to discredit the current thread's allegation by referencing articles that have again nothing to do with these specific issues.

The bottom line, ANTPogo, is that if getting facts wrong in any story that a source puts out is reason to completely discount that source in all stories, then you have NO sources you can believe. NONE. Because I can show that every one of the sources you folks cite in matters related to Clinton (when you folks actually do cite something) has gotten stories wrong and even lied to you about the facts on specific issues.

:D

ANTPogo said:
Quote:
Yet the LA Times failed to even tell it's readers there were rape allegations against Clinton during the impeachment. No, that event was never even mentioned until a few years ago when George Wills provided them an article to publish that mentioned it (It said ... "It is reasonable to believe that [Clinton] was a rapist 15 years before becoming president, and that as president he launched cruise missiles against Afghanistan (a nearly empty terrorist camp), Sudan (a pharmaceutical factory) and Iraq to distract attention from problems arising from the glandular dimension of his general indiscipline.") and they took it upon themselves to remove mention of the rape from the article without even consulting him and then publish it. Eventually, they had to apologize and mention the rape, but, of course, they buried that apology well back in the paper. Is that what you mean by a reliable source?

Unlike everything below, you don't include any links about this. Can you provide some, so I know what you're talking about here?
Click to expand...

Sure, although I think my post clearly explained what happened. Here is the column George Will submitted to the LA Times for publication, as published by a different (more reliable) source:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will011201.asp

You will note it contains the exact sentence I quoted.

Now, from Newsmax, via

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/los_angeles_times.htm

Thursday, Jan 11, 2001

Los Angeles Times Kills Mention of*Clinton Rape Allegation

… snip …

Today’s Los Angeles Times is a good example. The paper cut a line from George Will’s Jan. 11 column, eliminating a reference to well-founded allegations that President Clinton committed rape.

Without naming Juanita Broaddrick, Clinton’s rape victim, Will wrote, "It is reasonable to believe that [Clinton] was a rapist 15 years before becoming president, and that as president he launched cruise missiles against Afghanistan (a nearly empty terrorist camp), Sudan (a pharmaceutical factory) and Iraq to distract attention from problems arising from the glandular dimension of his general indiscipline."

The Los Angeles Times, however, wrote "It is reasonable to believe that he launched cruise missiles against Afghanistan (a nearly empty terrorist camp), Sudan (a pharmaceutical factory) and Iraq to distract attention from problems arising from the glandular dimension of his general indiscipline."
Click to expand...

But that's not the only article on this.

Again, from Newsmax, but with additional details:

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/1/15/114543.shtml

Neal Boortz

Monday, Jan. 15, 2001

… snip …

For example, the Los Angeles Times recently censored syndicated columnist George Will when he wrote that it was "reasonable to believe that [Bill Clinton] was a rapist 15 years before becoming president. …"

The Times editors didn’t like that line, so they took it out. Ditto for the Charleston, S.C., newspaper, the New York Post, the Houston Chronicle and others.

The Los Angeles Times has subsequently apologized after some readers complained:

"George F. Will's column on Thursday's commentary page, as edited by the Times, omitted the author's statement that it is reasonable to believe that President Clinton 'was a rapist 15 years before becoming president.' Although some might dispute Will's interpretation of the facts, it is his opinion and should have been included in his column."
Click to expand...

But wait! I hear it now. But it's Newsmax. :rolleyes:

http://business.highbeam.com/4130/article-1G1-70038018/rape-charge-unproven

WHY EDITORS CHANGED THEIR WILL

GEORGE WILL, LOS ANGELES TIMES

Where there's a Will, there's a way ... to drop a controversial column passage.

In a piece about Bill Clinton as he was about to leave office, George Will wrote, "It is reasonable to believe that he was a rapist 15 years before becoming president ... " That commentary set off a chain of events that included the pulling of that line by the Los Angeles Times and, last week, a Will response.

Shortly after the column appeared, L.A. Times Editor in Chief John Carroll admitted in an editor's note that the sentence shouldn't have been sliced because Will is entitled to his opinion. But …
Click to expand...

You can go ahead and sign up at that site if you want to read the rest.

Or perhaps just note that this indicates Dennis Prager, who lives in Los Angeles, talked about this issue on his talk show on the 11th of January:

http://www.lukeford.net/Dennis/022001.htm

1/11/00

Dennis Prager's show has never been better.

He spent his first 30 minutes blasting the Los Angeles Times for excising two sentences from a George Will column that mentioned that President Clinton was probably a rapist. DP points out again how liberal and biased the LA Times and the major news media are. They don't mind running Paul Conrad cartoons portraying George Bush in a Klu Klux Klan outfit.
Click to expand...

:D

ANTPogo said:
Quote:
In http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032002556.html , the WP claimed the man who Congressman Cleaver said spit on him, in an incident that seized the nation's attention for several days, was taken into custody and that Capital Police had "to usher him [Cleaver] into the building out of concern for his safety."

No, actually, the Post didn't "claim" anything. They were repeating the statements issued by Congressman Cleaver and the Congressional Black Caucus, and were very careful to attribute the descriptions of what happened to those sources. Never once in that article do they say the spitting incident was a reported fact.

[EDIT: The Post doesn't even say the supposed spitter was "taken into custody". It notes, in a correction from Cleaver's press release which said the man was arrested but that Cleaver declined to press charges, that he was merely detained and then released (though it does repeat the "declined to press charges" part of Cleaver's issued statement.]
Click to expand...

Ok fine. Thanks for your corrections. So the purpose of the WP is merely to report what democrats claim. Not to actually do any investigation to see if what they claim is true. So the WP is merely the mouthpiece of democrats? I thought "reliable" sources were supposed to verify the statements and claims they publish BEFORE they publish?

For example, the article states that the "spitter" was detained. It doesn't say that so and so told them that. It states AS IF IT IS FACT that "Police detained the individual, who was then released because Cleaver declined to press charges." But this is completely false. And simply checking with the police would have proven this was false. So why did the WP go ahead and publish that lie? Can they possibly be reliable if they don't check the veracity of what they publish? And call out liars as liars?

After quoting half a dozen democrats in the article … and ONLY democrats … the WP states: "The incidents followed a noontime protest on the west side of the Capitol that drew several thousand people from around the country for a "Code Red" rally against the health-care bill." But what incidents?

The spitting claim? The videos that were put out almost immediately (before 10:25PM when the article was published), clearly show that no one deliberately spit on the Congressman … as was clearly being alleged. Didn't the WP attempt to find videos of the incident before reporting it?

The claim made that the caucus members were repeatedly called the "n" word? If that claim were true, how come not a single witness other than these congressmen and their staffs ever claimed that? NOT ONE policeman or reporter or anyone else who was there has ever come forward to say he or she heard the n-word uttered by members of the crowd. NOT ONE video (and there were video cameras everywhere including those carried and in use by members of the Caucus as they walked through the crowd) recorded such slurs. And yet the WP published an article that for all intents and purposes treats it as fact. They don't question the claim AT ALL. In fact, to this day can you find a single WP article that corrects the impression their first article created … that the Congressmen were deliberately spit on and called the "n" word? I bet you can't.

Again, note that almost immediately after the *incidents*, the caucus members were making these claims. And almost immediately, they were reported by the mainstream media. And almost immediately after that, videos started appearing on the internet showing the alleged spitting incident. And those videos show that the alleged "spitter" was not detained. They prove that, contrary to the claims of Cleaver, he and his party were NOT "usher[ed]" "into the building out of concern for his safety". They were NOT "quickly escorted" away by Capital Police. The videos show that Cleaver and company continued their leisurely stroll towards the building. They show that the claims of the Black Caucus members that the WP so eagerly reported were false. BEFORE that WP article was published (at 10:25PM)

Isn't it the responsibility of good journalists and "reliable" papers to check out what they publish before they publish? Before they fan the flames of racial hatred?

ANTPogo said:
And here, your only criteria for the Post's reliability (or lack thereof) is that they disagree with your pet conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

LOL! That's absolutely false. My *criteria* are that the WP failed to report important facts in both cases. And those were just a few examples. How can you describe ANY source as providing a reliable picture in the Foster case if it doesn't even mention that three noted handwriting experts (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-1579504.html ), plus the police officer the government used to analyse handwriting (http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_.../1995/08a.html ), all concluded that so-called suicide note is a likely forgery? How can you claim that the WP is providing a fair picture of Brown's life and legacy if an article on that doesn't even tell it's readers the extent of the crimes Brown was accused of committing and the opinions of the ONLY REAL EXPERTS in his death as to possible cause? I think you're just showing more similarity to these folks, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7372259&postcount=163 , all the time. :D
 
Wait, so World Net Daily, a website with a history of pretty much zero fact-checking on the crap they publish and therefore with a history of posting massively stupid articles like Cashill's photoshop nonsense or Corsi's regurgitation of an anonymous "expert" analysis of Obama's birth certificate PDF that relied on *********** MS Paint, has nevertheless somehow managed to get every detail of their many Foster and Brown articles totally correct (at least, as far as you're concerned)?

That's...remarkable.
 
Last edited:
BeAChooser said:
LIAR. I did no such thing.
Click to expand...

Don't call me a liar, little boy. Ya wanna step outside and settle this? Fine, you go ahead and start punching yourself. I'll be along to help you soon's I finish this drink.

Apparently, you don't know what it means when a poster puts a smiley with rolling eyes after a statement ... like I did in my response:
Click to expand...

A simple rolleyes could mean any number of things, including the poster's response teh obviously ridiculous strawman presented. Given the nonsensical ideas you've already stated you believe I have to take what you say at face value.

But I guess it's much easier for you to focus on trivia and nonsense like this, than address the heart of my allegations regarding Brown's death?

Focusing on irrelevant trivia is a hallmark of these folks: http://www.internationalskeptics.co...m/forums/showpost.php?p=7372259&postcount=163 :D
Click to expand...

I don't give a rat's hindquarters about Ron Brown's death, specifically. I'm just here to keep you honest.
 
ApolloGnomon said:
I don't give a rat's hindquarters about Ron Brown's death, specifically.
Click to expand...

And yet here you are ... :rolleyes:

And the the number of posters who show up on these threads and eventually say pretty much the same thing is fascinating.

ApolloGnomon said:
I'm just here to keep you honest.
Click to expand...

LOL! You're certainly proving that. :rolleyes:

Oh wait. Do I need to explain to you what that smiley means? :D
 
The Charnel Expanse said:
Even Ann Coulter, who's never met an anti-Liberal/anti-Democrat smear she didn't fall in love with has gone on record saying Christopher Ruddy is a fraud.
Click to expand...

LOL! If you think Ann Coulter agrees with you where Clinton is concerned, you never read her book, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton". In it she makes a 350 page plus, scathing, fact-filled indictment of Clinton over the Lewinski affair, Whitewater, Filegate, Chinagate, CampaignFinancegate, Foster's death, Brown's death, the travel office firings, the IRS audits, etc, etc, etc. :D
 
BeAChooser said:
LOL! If you think Ann Coulter agrees with you where Clinton is concerned, you never read her book, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton". In it she makes a 350 page plus, scathing, fact-filled indictment of Clinton over the Lewinski affair, Whitewater, Filegate, Chinagate, CampaignFinancegate, Foster's death, Brown's death, the travel office firings, the IRS audits, etc, etc, etc. :D
Click to expand...

Coulter has much the same problem with facts that you do.
 
BeAChooser said:
LOL! If you think Ann Coulter agrees with you
Click to expand...

I rather doubt he did given that he said:

Even Ann Coulter, who's never met an anti-Liberal/anti-Democrat smear she didn't fall in love with
Click to expand...

The point, which sailed over your head, was that even Coulter managed to see through what you consider a reliable source.

I don't consider most dogs to be gourmet eaters, some of the stuff they'll eat would turn your stomach in a heartbeat. But even a piece of meat can be so rancid that a dog won't eat it. Coulter is the dog, Ruddy is the rancid meat. You're trying to tell us that Ruddy is Filet Mignon.
 
Wait, are you trying to say that Ann Coulter eats cat poo? Because that's what my dog eats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom