1. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum...
    You are currently logged out and viewing our forum as a guest which only allows limited access to our discussions, photos and other forum features. If you are a 12ozProphet Member please login to get the full experience.

    If you are not a 12ozProphet Member, please take a moment to register to gain full access to our website and all of its features. As a 12ozProphet Member you will be able to post comments, start discussions, communicate privately with other members and access members-only content. Registration is fast, simple and free, so join today and be a part of the largest and longest running Graffiti, Art, Style & Culture forum online.

    Please note, if you are a 12ozProphet Member and are locked out of your account, you can recover your account using the 'lost password' link in the login form. If you no longer have access to the email you registered with, please email us at info@12ozprophet.com and we'll help you recover your account. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum (and don't forget to follow @12ozprophet in Instagram)!

the Don Rumsfeld soundbyte of the year contest

Discussion in 'Channel Zero' started by BROWNer, Dec 29, 2002.

  1. BROWNer

    BROWNer Guest

    the Don Rumsfeld soundbyte of the year contest

    Discussion started by BROWNer - Dec 29, 2002

    unknown unknowns

    my favourite definitely the last.
    but i disagree with the commentator...it does
    not make sense. the first time i heard him
    say this i thought it did, but...
    first he says there are 'no knowns'.
    then he turns around and says 'there are things we
    know that we know'........then, 'there are known
    if there are no knowns, how can there be
    known knowns and unknowns? how can you know there are
    things you know and don't know if there are no
    knowns in the first place?
  2. Kr430n5_666

    Kr430n5_666 Banned

    Oct 6, 2004

    Kr430n5_666 - Replied Dec 29, 2002

    Kr430n5_666 - Rank: Banned - Messages:
    - Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
  3. imported_El Mamerro - Replied Dec 29, 2002

    Nah, he doesn't say "no knowns" at first... he says "known knowns". It makes sense like that. Still fucking hilarious. Beer,

    El Mamerro
  4. melty

    melty 12oz Senior Member

    Nov 14, 2002

    melty - Replied Dec 29, 2002

    I am not sure who they were talking about. He sounds like a normal person. Unlike our(usa) politicians. They go around and around without saying much.
    melty - Rank: 12oz Senior Member - Messages:
    - Joined:
    Nov 14, 2002
  5. BROWNer

    BROWNer Guest

    BROWNer - Replied Dec 29, 2002

    oops, mams, this is actually the supposed full text of that quote:

    Rumsfeld baffles press with 'unknown unknowns'
    The United States Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has baffled journalists in Brussels by explaining the greatest threat to Western civilisation may lurk in what he has termed "unknown unknowns".

    Mr Rumsfeld says he told a meeting of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) defence ministers that even US intelligence agencies can often only see the tip of the iceberg when looking for terrorist threats.
    But this is how he explained it at a media conference.
    "There are no knowns," Mr Rumsfeld.
    "There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns - that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know but there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know," Mr Rumsfeld said.
    "So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information together, and we then say well that's basically what we see as the situation, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns.
    "And each year we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns."

    i know what he's getting at, but...