• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Bob Knight was Investigated by the FBI

I see that the munchkin crowd have lost the argument, so in the absence of any logical response now they resort to...

Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals is the last book published in 1971 by activist and writer Saul D. Alinsky shortly before his death.
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
13. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

And that, fellow posters, is why they're such pathetic little munchkins. This is all they do.
 
Lohengrin said:
I see that the munchkin crowd have lost the argument, so in the absence of any logical response now they resort to...

Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals is the last book published in 1971 by activist and writer Saul D. Alinsky shortly before his death.
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
13. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

And that, fellow posters, is why they're such pathetic little munchkins. This is all they do.
Click to expand...

Logic appears pretty immune to you (see the recruiting thread and this thread). When met with facts and things you don't like you just declare "FAKE NEWS!" and go about your day. There's not much point in arguing after that. Hence why the current administration has proven so successful in shutting down arguments they "disagree" with. This will be my last exchange with you for the sake of clearing up the board for Wake Forest related things instead of whatever this is.
 
Lohengrin said:
I see that the munchkin crowd have lost the argument, so in the absence of any logical response now they resort to...

Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals is the last book published in 1971 by activist and writer Saul D. Alinsky shortly before his death.
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
13. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

And that, fellow posters, is why they're such pathetic little munchkins. This is all they do.
Click to expand...

34jf0a8.gif
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Logic appears pretty immune to you (see the recruiting thread and this thread). When met with facts and things you don't like you just declare "FAKE NEWS!" and go about your day. There's not much point in arguing after that. Hence why the current administration has proven so successful in shutting down arguments they "disagree" with. This will be my last exchange with you for the sake of clearing up the board for Wake Forest related things instead of whatever this is.
Click to expand...

Now you're just mischaracterizing the process. YOU made an assertion by posting a baseless hit piece implying actual misconduct by Knight. In fact, and predictably, there was none and that was obvious. Therefore it was clearly fake news. You, the proponent of the piece, have the burden of proving your assertion. I don't bear the burden of disproving it. That's what "logic" demands. So use it, don't obfuscate.

What happened to WaPo's hit piece anyway? It was dead the next day. It was literally NOTHING. That's the hallmark of "fake news". That's PROOF.
 
Last edited:
I love it. What did 60-70 year old men do before the internet to pass their time and share their shitty views? Was this why there was such high participation that is now dwindling in rotary and lions clubs? Is Wednesday night bingo suffering?
 
Lohengrin said:
Now you're just mischaracterizing the process. YOU made an assertion by posting a baseless hit piece implying actual misconduct by Knight. In fact, and predictably, there was none and that was obvious. Therefore it was clearly fake news. You, the proponent of the piece, have the burden of proving your assertion. I don't bear the burden of disproving it. That's what "logic" demands. So use it, don't obfuscate.

What happened to WaPo's hit piece anyway? It was dead the next day. It was literally NOTHING. That's the hallmark of "fake news". That's PROOF.
Click to expand...

This is what I'm talking about.

This wasn't a "hit piece" by any definition of the word. Through reporting they found out that Bob Knight had been investigated by the FBI. They published a piece that said he was investigated and no charges were brought. This is the epitome of real journalism. They wrote an article on information that they researched, reported, and found out about to its conclusion and entirety.

I ask again, how in the world is this fake news? I asked you earlier to explain that to me and your response detailed about how this wouldn't have been written if it was Joe Biden (complete and utter red herring), which doesn't answer the question at all.

If you truly believe (which it appears that you do) that this was a piece written solely because Bob Knight is a Trump supporter then that's an opinion, and would make sense as to why you think that it's a "hit piece".

That doesn't change the FACT (literal fact) that Bob Knight was investigated by the FBI and no further charges were brought. That was all the article stated. He was investigated and cleared. That is a fact, not an opinion.

Are you claiming that this never happened?
Are you claiming this wasn't "newsworthy"?

You're just spewing "fake news" because you heard it from the man in the White House and think it's a cool thing to say, but I don't think you have any idea what "fake news" actually means. You're just using it to protest an article that you disagree with (for what reason I don't know, because you never asserted that).

The article stands on its own and doesn't need defending from a "proponent of the piece". There is no assertion made at all in the piece, nor made by myself in posting it. The article was written based on 100% facts of something that objectively happened in the real world.
 
Just remember to LOH, stealing tens of millions from Trump U. believers based on lies to BK people is OK.

To LOH, stealing from a painter in such an egregious manner that a judge started foreclosure procedures to get Trump to pay. http://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/ent-columns-blogs/jose-lambiet/article81648707.html

Here's another. Trump said the work was "inferior" but used the products and invited the inferior to other projects with Trump. http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/...ker-We-went-broke-after-Trump-stiffed-us.html

There are hundreds of other such cases where Trump used the products and didn't pay.

To LOH bragging about being a Peeping Tom is OK. Even when Trump brags about being a pervert, Loh is OK with it.
 
You and your issue are now boring. As I indicated, the death of the issue substantiates it as fake news, whether you considered it so or not. The WaPo is a Jeff Bezos blog and no longer adheres to journalistic standards of any kind. They knew they were presenting fake news and did so intentionally (they knew or should have known the FBI summarily dismissed the complaints, yet didn't provide that information in their hit piece; other outlets did). All you and the rest are doing now is trying to badger me for ad hominem purposes and while I too have a little fun with that, it gets tiresome after a bit. If YOU want address a specific point I've made in a substantive manner, I may look at this thread again later and choose to reply. No offense, really. Just understand that people from the other side of the political spectrum might just have as strong opinions on these matters as you have, and will/should defend them energetically. Politics on this forum are somewhat imbalanced in that regard for some reason.
 
Please indicate your view of journalistic standards, and which outlets you believe adhere to those nowadays
 
You aren't interested in journalistic standards, since you know what you're going to maintain regardless of any answer from me. And I can't reason you out of your belief on that when you weren't reasoned into it in the first place.
 
No, I genuinely am. My first job out of Wake was a newspaper reporter and I did my damnedest to adhere to standards I had been taught. Just want to see how they line up with yours and why the WaPo's don't.
 
BarcaDeac said:
Please indicate your view of journalistic standards, and which outlets you believe adhere to those nowadays
Click to expand...

Give that I have used materials from Wall Street Journal, Fox News, USA Today and many others, it seems that to Loh if you are to the left of Alex Jones or Breitbart, you have no "journalistic standards".
 
The only references I ever hear about Rules For Radicals are from hard right conservatives. They must think that a copy is given out at the first day of liberal indoctrination camp.
 
ChrisL68 said:
The only references I ever hear about Rules For Radicals are from hard right conservatives. They must think that a copy is given out at the first day of liberal indoctrination camp.
Click to expand...

I must have smoking peyote in a sweat lodge while singing kumbaya backed by a sitar, lute and didgeridoo when they handed that out.
 
RJKarl said:
Give that I have used materials from Wall Street Journal, Fox News, USA Today and many others, it seems that to Loh if you are to the left of Alex Jones or Breitbart, you have no "journalistic standards".
Click to expand...

And there you go again, lying. You're incorrigible RJ. If you'll notice, I didn't challenge your source materials in my response to your post. I accepted all of them. Yet that doesn't stop you from making up facts, just like you make up all of your political arguments.
 
Lohengrin said:
And there you go again, lying. You're incorrigible RJ. If you'll notice, I didn't challenge your source materials in my response to your post. I accepted all of them. Yet that doesn't stop you from making up facts, just like you make up all of your political arguments.
Click to expand...

You challenged the WSJ. You challenged the WaPo.

" WSJ had been very anti-Trump during the campaign, but this is seemingly true"

"The WaPo is a Jeff Bezos blog and no longer adheres to journalistic standards of any kind."

You also denied that Trump stole millions re: Trump U. and that he stole products and services when he used the products and services and said he would recommend the vendors. We didn't even talk about how he stole tips from employees and lost that case, too.

You pooh poohed his being proud of being a Peeping Tom towards teenage girls.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL68 said:
The only references I ever hear about Rules For Radicals are from hard right conservatives. They must think that a copy is given out at the first day of liberal indoctrination camp.
Click to expand...

http://rense.com/general80/fon.htm

Fresh out of law school at age 26, Hillary received a prestigious appointment to the House Judiciary Committee's Watergate investigative team in 1974. She got the job on the recommendation of Peter and Marian Wright Edelman.

The Edelmans have been trusted mentors of Hillary since 1969. New Republic editor Martin Peretz called Marian " Hillary's closest sister and ideological soulmate". Marian Wright Edelman also happens to be an Alinskyite, having served on the Board of Trustees of Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation.

Many leftists view Hillary as a sell-out because she claims to hold moderate views on some issues. However, Hillary is simply following Alinsky's counsel to do and say whatever it takes to gain power.

Barack Obama is also an Alinskyite. Trained by Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation, Obama spent years teaching workshops on the Alinsky method. In 1985 he began a four-year stint as a community organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite group called the Developing Communities Project. Later, he worked with ACORN and its offshoot Project Vote , both creations of the Alinsky network.

Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing. While trying to build coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer .

That Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama share an Alinskyite background tells us two things. First, they are leftists, dedicated to overthrowing our Constitutional system. Second, they will go to any length to conceal their radicalism from the public.

That is the Alinsky method. And that is today's Democratic Party.
Click to expand...

This is what your leaders believe in. By copying their psychopathic beliefs on policies and tactics, you embrace it by proxy. Because, that is the behavior you're demonstrating on this thread, to the letter. It's the Leftist MO.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top