Debate: Should Bill Clinton speak at President Reagan's Funeral.

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Cool, so in that case:

Bush dodged the draft.
Bush did cocaine for years.
Bush planned on invading Iraq from 9/12/01.
Bush knew there were no WMD's.
Bush knew he was lying in the state of the union about the Niger story.

Hey...I like this game

Your life, your fantasies. I'd never be the one to burst your bubble.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by gometros
But you did, when you said


Your statement implies support of dmadman43's statement as fact, when it is, in fact, an opinion.

As I said, from MY perspective, it certainly appears factual. It passes all my tests. Too bad it doesn't pass yours, but that's the great thing about the country we live in: you are free to be as wrong as you wanna be!

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
Your life, your fantasies. I'd never be the one to burst your bubble.

Hey, they're just as much "facts" as what was posted about the Clintons. Actually, they're probably more so, as there is at least some evidence that those things are true

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
So, I just want to be really clear, you think this *is* indeed a fact:

Wowzers... how many times do you need something repeated to you before you "get" it?

I'm more interested in how you define facts rather than the statement at hand. Very interested in your answer to the above question.

The dictionary has a number of definitions, but I suppose this one works for me: "a piece of information presented as having objective reality". Which definition works for you?

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Hey, they're just as much "facts" as what was posted about the Clintons. Actually, they're probably more so, as there is at least some evidence that those things are true

Right ... and there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever for these statements:

The man is drawn to temptation like a moth to an open flame. And as the Borg (from Star Trek) say, "Resistance is futile" -- at least for our former President.

The Clintons ALWAYS have an alterior movtive. They are politics version of Tinkerbell.

 

[gometros]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
As I said, from MY perspective, it certainly appears factual. It passes all my tests. Too bad it doesn't pass yours, but that's the great thing about the country we live in: you are free to be as wrong as you wanna be!

I guess it also gives you the right to waffle as much as one wants. First you say it is a fact, then you say it isn't, then you say it is. Tell me when I can get off of this Merry-Go-Round.

Now this is a *real* example of twisting facts to win arguments.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by gometros
I guess it also gives you the right to waffle as much as one wants. First you say it is a fact, then you say it isn't, then you say it is. Tell me when I can get off of this Merry-Go-Round.

Now this is a *real* example of twisting facts to win arguments.

*SIGH* Do I really have to break all the previous posts down into single sentences for clarity and understanding?

1. I never claimed that my statement about former President Clinton was a fact. I readily admitted that IT was opinion.

2. I never claimed that dmadman43's statement about former President Clinton was an opinion. I said from MY perspective it looked, smelled and read like a fact. As the old saying goes, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, IT'S PROBABLY A DUCK!

Sorry you feel caught on a Merry-Go-Round, but it's a contraption of your OWN creation. Since you made it, only you can find the exit ... that is if you built/created an exit. Otherwise, I hope you enjoy the ride!

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
As the old saying goes, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, IT'S PROBABLY A DUCK!

Unless, of course, the "duck" in question would make the republican president look bad, in which case you better have rock-solid evidence from at least 5 different sources (which shall be deemed credible or not by your judgement).

Sorry to keep sticking my nose into this, but you gotta admit it's pretty funny. The list of things I posted ALL have significant evidence (if not overwhelming) surrounding them, yet I'm doubting you give ANY of them credibility. It's a textbook example of hypocrisy.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Sorry to keep sticking my nose into this, but you gotta admit it's pretty funny.

If you're like me, it's hard to resist the temptation!

The list of things I posted ALL have significant evidence (if not overwhelming) surrounding them, yet I'm doubting you give ANY of them credibility. It's a textbook example of hypocrisy.

Let's take a look at your list then.

1. Bush dodged the draft.
President Bush signed up for the National Guard, something that a number of young men did at that time and a legitimate action to take. I would not claim to know what he was thinking at the time and I've not read or heard anything that indicated he signed up with the NG to avoid the draft. To me, this appears to be an argument from silence, so I can't really say I agree or disagree with it.

2. Bush did cocaine for years.
I believe he has admitted to using drugs.

3. Bush planned on invading Iraq from 9/12/01.
Again, I've not read or heard anything more than speculation about this. I've not seen any hard evidence that would provide absolute proof of this statement. So I cannot agree or disagree with this.

4. Bush knew there were no WMD's.
See point 3; same thing.

5. Bush knew he was lying in the state of the union about the Niger story.
See point 3 again; same thing.

In the future, before accusing someone of hypocrisy, you might want to be certain of your facts. Given my answers here, I'm a little puzzled at the accusation. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and assume ( ) that you were referring to conservatives/Bush supporters as a whole.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
Wowzers... how many times do you need something repeated to you before you "get" it? The dictionary has a number of definitions, but I suppose this one works for me: "a piece of information presented as having objective reality". Which definition works for you?

Well, that settles the discussion then.

I'm afraid, you cannot tell fact from opinion. (Which, by the way, if we went by your example of determining fact or opinion, would indeed be a fact.) Just because you believe something to be a fact doesn't make it one. Note your "own" definition you provided: "objective reality."

Your definition of "fact" and "opinion" kind of draws into question your credibility on any number of topics.

 

[olbear]

Once again, I will be asking the mods about this type of post.

I for one am so glad the debate board is closed. I wish all debates would stop on this board!

I hate the bickering. No it's not even debating, it's gets down right ugly and petty garbage politics so much of the time. When I come to these boards it's to be happy about Disney. Not to read dissenting comments and debates such as these and others I have viewed, even since the debate board was closed.

Our society as a whole is going down the toilet, with who's right and who's wrong. Why we can't get back to the old America when Americans supported each other in general, and weren't out to publicly bash each other with no shame.

I'm sorry I'm just tired of it.

God bless America,
And God help us all with more understanding and gentleness as a nation!!!

Winnie
(stepping off soap-box now)

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by olbear
Once again, I will be asking the mods about this type of post.

I for one am so glad the debate board is closed. I wish all debates would stop on this board!

I hate the bickering. No it's not even debating, it's gets down right ugly and petty garbage politics so much of the time. When I come to these boards it's to be happy about Disney. Not to read dissenting comments and debates such as these and others I have viewed, even since the debate board was closed.

Our society as a whole is going down the toilet, with who's right and who's wrong. Why we can't get back to the old America when Americans supported each other in general, and weren't out to publicly bash each other with no shame.

I'm sorry I'm just tired of it.

God bless America,
And God help us all with more understanding and gentleness as a nation!!!

Winnie
(stepping off soap-box now)

With all due respect, this thread has "Debate" in the title. I don't understand why you would be even looking at it if this type of thread upsets you so?

 

[katerkat]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
But, in the end, I find that it adds nothing to the discussion at hand. Honestly, does anyone really believe that if Clinton did speak that he would even come close to mentioning his book?

I don't think he'd mention the book - but hey, it's a BIG public event, televised nationally. Being seen there would remind the public about him faster than any other TV appearances. It's good publicity for him - if I was his PR team, I'd definitely want him speaking there.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by olbear
Once again, I will be asking the mods about this type of post.

I for one am so glad the debate board is closed. I wish all debates would stop on this board!

II'm sorry I'm just tired of it.

I too am sorry the debate board is closed but it is, and we were invited to take our discussions here. If you do not like this type of post, why are you here? And once you realized what type of post it was, why did you stay? And thirdly, just because you don't like this type of post, why would you want to "ask the mods" about it if not for the purpose of eliminating discussion of anything that isn't fluff and pixie dust. Reminds me of tattle taling.

 

[peachgirl]

There's no doubt about it, hell has frozen over.....Dawn and I agree on something!

Well, except for the fact that I'm not sorry that the DB was closed.


Total agreement would be just way too much to ask for!!!

 

[tiggersmom2]

Originally posted by olbear
Once again, I will be asking the mods about this type of post.

I for one am so glad the debate board is closed. I wish all debates would stop on this board!

I hate the bickering. No it's not even debating, it's gets down right ugly and petty garbage politics so much of the time. When I come to these boards it's to be happy about Disney. Not to read dissenting comments and debates such as these and others I have viewed, even since the debate board was closed.

Our society as a whole is going down the toilet, with who's right and who's wrong. Why we can't get back to the old America when Americans supported each other in general, and weren't out to publicly bash each other with no shame.

I'm sorry I'm just tired of it.

God bless America,
And God help us all with more understanding and gentleness as a nation!!!

Winnie
(stepping off soap-box now)

Sorry, but I have seen MUCH uglier threads on the CB rather than the DB. If something offends you, just click out of it.

 

[ginna74]

if clinton respected reagan then why not??? I hear so much of well reagan might of did this for our country but he failed this way.. he isn't so hot.... I HATE THAT.. we are not bearing REAGAN'S policy we are bearing a very well respected man! and so that Clinton was dem and REAGAN was repub...again.... we are all human!

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
Cheer up Three Circles! Kerry is ahead in several of the polls so far! Thats what really matters anyway, right?

If that mattered, then why vote on Nov 2nd?

Actually if you look at the data, Kerry himself is not ahead. The polls indicate more of an "anybody but Bush" sentiment at the moment. They have no idea who Kerry is, really. I'd be surprised if, come Nov 2nd the collective electorate will vote the devil they don't know vs the devil they know.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
I'll let you address yourself on this one...

Think that one up all by yourself, did you?

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
A statement of fact? You call his post a statement of fact? It sounds to me like it's nothing more than his opinion. Which, of course, he is totally entitled to.

But, in the end, I find that it adds nothing to the discussion at hand. Honestly, does anyone really believe that if Clinton did speak that he would even come close to mentioning his book?

And my post was simply to highlight the fact that dmadman43 has criticized others for adding little to the debate when he himself engages in it quite often.

Well, neither did stem cell research... Someone remind me who took us down that path. I can't seem to recall...