reply to post by Battleline
All of what you said is your opinion, nothing about what is untrue in the article that got you on such a rant.
You want I should list every article ever published by them that I found objectionable? Darn near all of them. But I don't in general read them, so
that's a pretty worthless statement.
In this article in particular, I note that in the third paragraph the author issues a particularly stupid dogwhistle: that Clinton wrote a college
thesis on Saul Alinsky, but they did not provide any justification for why that was a good or bad thing (because, you know, EVERYBODY knows that
Alinsky is the anti-Christ and why is Clinton praising him)?
The fact is that Clinton's thesis criticized Alinsky strongly. Whether or not you like Alinsky, Clinton condemned him and his so-called "tactics"
(specifically his 'power/conflict model') as unworkable and worthless on scales larger than small communities.
This is typical of the "American Thinker" writer (NOT unique to AT by the way): turn perfectly benign stuff to exactly its opposite, not so benign
meanings, then spew it out all connected to all kinds of other twisted crap, and say it all over and over and over, until it turn into code that you
can string together to say stuff with plausible deniability.
This author didn't say any thing bad or good about Clinton's thesis or Saul Alinsky. He didn't have too; it is already code for something 'bad', even
if those who understand the code don't realize that Clinton was actually criticizing the same boogie man that is being invoked.
Crap like that stops me from reading further. They are dishonest in the extreme. That dishonesty carries over into everything they write. Their
racist, misogynist bias oozes into everything they write.
Its fine to have opinions. It is not fine to lie about facts, turn facts on their heads, and twist the meaning of words to try to make the world match
your own Private Idaho.
American Thinker is one of the uglies. Not the only ugly, and not the ugliest, but ugly just the same.
edit on 18/9/2013 by rnaa because: