 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Monk
|
|
I don't think we're in Brønshøj anymore
Jan 1970
time: 06:17
|
|
Of course the WWN is a credible source we should take seriously. Who else would have dealt with the amazing similiarities in the lives of Bush and Howard Stern respectively?
FACT: The names George W. Bush and Howard Stern both have exactly 11 letters.
FACT: The word "bush" is slang for female private parts. Stern's autobiography was titled Private Parts.
FACT: Both men have daughters, but no sons.
FACT: Howard's sidekick is Robin Quivers. Robin is the name of Batman's sidekick. And the Boy Wonder's real name is **** -- just like Bush's sidekick, Vice President **** Cheney!
FACT: Major turning points in their lives came at the same time. During the campaign last year, Bush told reporters he hadn't used illegal drugs "in the past 25 years." That makes his first drug-free year 1976 . . . the same year Stern graduated from college!
FACT: Bush is the leader of the greatest nation on Earth, making him the equivalent of a king. Howard Stern's nickname is "The King of All Media."
FACT: Stern created an alter ego named Fartman, whose superpowers come from passing gas. A chief cause of breaking wind is baked beans -- and one of the most popular brands of beans now on the market is, you guessed it, called Bush's.
FACT: Bush generated considerable controversy when he said his favorite political philosopher was Jesus. Stern generated considerable controversy when he had the Jesus Twins on the air.
FACT: Both have top aides named John. Bush has Attorney General John Ashcroft. Stern has stammering celebrity interviewer "Stuttering John" Melendez.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Stefu
|
 |
CLOWNS WIT DA DOWNS 4 LIFE YO!
Jan 1970
time: 07:17
|
|
quote:
And I highly doubt that everything in there is made up - after all, the few bits we've bothered to think through have turned out to be true. |
Oh yes, that ages-old tactic. If we make up a loooooot of lies, then laws of propability state that at least *some* of them are true! 
And in what part, exactly, did something on that article turn up to be true? The part where you posted CNN links which didn't actually say anything about Clinton killing them, or in part where mighty forces of Clinton the Evil control the weather itself? Ooooh, I know, I know, it's the part where *you* accuse Clinton of committing murders and then *you* demand us the proof that he didn't commit them!
quote:
More worthless rhet. Neeext. (as in, we've established they go wild on occasion thanks to our friend rev a little bit earlier - there's actually a LOT of truth over at the WWN, especially in the pizza delivery story) |
There's also a lot of truth at Onion, particularily at Onion A.V Club section. That still doesn't change the fact that WWN is a parody of a tabloid, and therefore none of their stories can be trusted by themselves.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wiglaf
|
 |
Cambridge
Dec 2000
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Oh yes, that ages-old tactic. If we make up a loooooot of lies, then laws of propability state that at least *some* of them are true! |
How is that an age-old tactic? You're sounding a bit paranoid yourself, Stefu. Maybe a glass of warm water?
Laws of "propability" have nothing to do with it. Hell, even if they did, it doesn't change the fact that Vince Foster is dead after having a suspected affair with Hillary, which NO MATTER WHAT ELSE is in the article, is alarming. I don't see what you're getting at anyway: while I admit the WWN goes off course every now and then (there's the loot of lies you were talking about), eventually they stumble on a kickass story that has very valid information in it. It's your blindness and arrogance that prevents you from linking backup sources the way I did (namely, ones that disprove the listed murders). In reality, you'd have to come up with an explaination for ALL the deaths, probably with a unique site for each one, and you know as well as I do that's a pain in the ass. I win, or at the very least, I've got a point.
The only way he's getting away with this is because of people like you guys, with that "left-wing conspiracy WAT left-wing conspiracy?" attitude. Apolyton should be shut down in disgrace. I've presented a source, a backup source, and common sense. All you have provided is leftist common sense. I want more.
quote:
And in what part, exactly, did something on that article turn up to be true? The part where you posted CNN links which didn't actually say anything about Clinton killing them, or in part where mighty forces of Clinton the Evil control the weather itself? Ooooh, I know, I know, it's the part where *you* accuse Clinton of committing murders and then *you* demand us the proof that he didn't commit them! |
How so very terrible of me! Listen to yourself, Stefu, you're admitting to the fact that Clinton is a dangerous killer in almost every way. The article is correct in that: Clinton has power (to level a five block area on the money - that NEVER happens -, to lie to the entire country, and to hire a hit squad), Vince Foster is dead, and a lot of houses in Arkansas are going up in flames all of a sudden. It's not a loot of lies or whatever, it's a bible of truth.
quote:
There's also a lot of truth at Onion, particularily at Onion A.V Club section. That still doesn't change the fact that WWN is a parody of a tabloid, and therefore none of their stories can be trusted by themselves. |
I'm not that narrow minded. One offense doesn't justify a sweeping judgement, on a tabloid at least. On a person, maybe, but not on a publication with so many different writers.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Admiral
|
 |
of the peace and coexistance movement
Feb 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
As has been stated earlier in the thread, it is very easy to come up with a list of suspicious deaths, and much harder to disprove them. For every disporve that someone can bring up, the accuser can state that the new evidence is wrong. However, it is certainly possible to make something appear so implausible as to be not worth considering.
Firstly, as has also been previously stated, WWN is a parady of a tabloid. Therefore, they would not ever print anything that has even a remote possibility of being true. That being said, how can you say that that is a more reliable source than anything else?
Secondly, we can look at motivation. Clinton's second term was filled with the Monica scandal. If, as has been insinuated, most of the people were going to release information on Clinton's sex life, and Clinton had the power to kill large amounts of people, wouldn't he have killed Linda Tripps, Monica Louinsky, Kenneth Starr, etc? Since that wasn't the case, why would he kill some people who have potentially damaging information on him and not others?
Thirdly, about your CNN links. The only thing they do is say that the weather behaved unusually. Yesterday, it was supposed to be party cloudy at my house. it was actually clear. Do i now assume that i am the victim of a conspiracy? Also, even if the cause of a death cannot be fully ascertained, must we automatically assume that it was Clinton?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
Hmmm... has anyone stopped to consider the possibility that Wiggy is himself a satire? I mean, honestly, it's either that or he has a psychiatric condition of considerable magnitude.
Wiggy, courtesy of Sagacious Dolphin:
 Attachment: beaker_s.jpg
This has been downloaded 63 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wiglaf
|
|
Cambridge
Dec 2000
time: 23:17
|
|
For Christ's sake people, I'm not a muppet. And while I'd love to see this topic die off as you monsters have threadjacked it to pieces, Admiral's remark upsets me greatly. To attempt to quickly address it:
quote:
Firstly, as has also been previously stated, WWN is a parady of a tabloid. Therefore, they would not ever print anything that has even a remote possibility of being true. That being said, how can you say that that is a more reliable source than anything else? |
Two simple questions: 1) ever delivered a pizza? 2) how long you been reading the WWN? Pizza places can do the weirdest things to the whatever it is they're delivering, you know. It's not all peaches and cream when you make minimum wage after all.
quote:
Secondly, we can look at motivation. Clinton's second term was filled with the Monica scandal. If, as has been insinuated, most of the people were going to release information on Clinton's sex life, and Clinton had the power to kill large amounts of people, wouldn't he have killed Linda Tripps, Monica Louinsky, Kenneth Starr, etc? Since that wasn't the case, why would he kill some people who have potentially damaging information on him and not others? |
As you can probably tell, Clinton hasn't exactly been damaged by Starr or Tripp. He rather enjoys the attention. The people the article mentions had much more on him, I'm afraid. Besides, keep in mind that he was playing this safe - the average person wouldn't be stupid enough to buy Ken Starr, Monica Lewinsky, and Linda Tripp choking on a sandwich at the same time and dying immediatly right before every damn scandal. Really guys...
quote:
Thirdly, about your CNN links. The only thing they do is say that the weather behaved unusually. Yesterday, it was supposed to be party cloudy at my house. it was actually clear. Do i now assume that i am the victim of a conspiracy? |
Are you dead?
quote:
Also, even if the cause of a death cannot be fully ascertained, must we automatically assume that it was Clinton? |
No, it was people hired by Clinton. That's fairly important. But yes, it's a reasonable assumption based on the facts and the political and personal affiliations that people dropping like flies in a bunch of unsolved murders is a bit out of the ordinary.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-01-2002 13:27
Good job. 
we must contact someone immediately!
|
