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

[Patch'sD]

Nope, He should sit and pay his respects.

 

[gometros]

Originally posted by Lewisc
The rules are state specific. Are you an attorney that is licensed to practice law in IL? Do you have any basis for telling Steve that his lawyer is wrong?

I never said his attorney was wrong. All I recommended was that he review the documentwith his attorney.

I will back off this debate for now, since we have wandered way off topic. This you're wrong/he's wrong is a waste of bandwidth. I too know what I'm talking about and I didn't deal with it within the past year, but the past month and I'll let it go at that.

 

[katerkat]

I don't think Clinton wants to speak for political gain.

His book comes out on the 22nd.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by katerkat
I don't think Clinton wants to speak for political gain.

His book comes out on the 22nd.

There are only 3 reasons why Bill Clinton would agree to speak in public in any forum these days:

1) Political gain/power

2) Spin his legacy

3) Sell his book

 

[gometros]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
There are only 3 reasons why Bill Clinton would agree to speak in public in any forum these days:

1) Political gain/power

2) Spin his legacy

3) Sell his book

And maybe he doesn't have any further ulterior motive than to honor a fellow past president.

I can see it now:

"Today we honor a great president and copies of my book are available for sale at the back of the church as you exit."

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by gometros
And maybe he doesn't have any further ulterior motive than to honor a fellow past president.

I can see it now:

"Today we honor a great president and copies of my book are available for sale at the back of the church as you exit."

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

 

[ThreeCircles]

Sorry, double post. See below.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by dmadman43
The Clintons ALWAYS have an alterior movtive. They are politics version of Tinkerbell.

I'll let you address yourself on this one...

Originally posted by dmadman43
Talk about not adding value...

 

[Eeyore1954]

I would never assume to speak for dmadman43 -- but how is posting a statement of fact not adding value to the debate?

And maybe you'd care to explain what value your last post added, ThreeCircles? From my perspective, it just appears petty -- like you have some axe to grind.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Sorry, double post. See below.

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

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
I would never assume to speak for dmadman43 -- but how is posting a statement of fact not adding value to the debate?

And maybe you'd care to explain what value your last post added, ThreeCircles? From my perspective, it just appears petty -- like you have some axe to grind.

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.

 

[DawnCt1]

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

When he stays out of sight, his numbers go up but when he opens his mouth, he plummets.

 

[Eeyore1954]

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.

As you are entitled to your opinion, but again, since you are so concerned with adding value to the debate, what value does this add?

Honestly, does anyone really believe that if Clinton did speak that he would even come close to mentioning his book?

I don't see how he could resist. 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.

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.

*SIGH* Pot, kettle ... need I say more?

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
As you are entitled to your opinion, but again, since you are so concerned with adding value to the debate, what value does this add? I don't see how he could resist. 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. *SIGH* Pot, kettle ... need I say more?

*SIGH* is right.

It seems that a great number of individuals (DawnCt1, dmadman43, and now yourself) present nothing more than inflamatory remarks about Clinton, Kerry, or any number of other individuals and then, as you yourself claim, state they are "fact" and viable to the discussion at had.

Do you really think these are facts:

Eeyore1954 states:
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.

dmadman43 states:
The Clintons ALWAYS have an alterior movtive. They are politics version of Tinkerbell.

Come now, are you sure these aren't opinions?

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
*SIGH* is right.

ITA, especially when someone completely ignores questions addressed to them.

It seems that a great number of individuals (DawnCt1, dmadman43, and now yourself) present nothing more than inflamatory remarks about Clinton, Kerry, or any number of other individuals and then, as you yourself claim, state they are "fact" and viable to the discussion at had.

I never claimed that the alleged inflammatory remark about Clinton I made was fact. If you can find where in that post I said, "This is a FACT", I'd like to see it. I have no problem admitting that what I posted was an opinion, based on my observations of former President Clinton's behavior while in office.

However, I am not the one who is getting their knickers in a knot over participants "not adding value to the debate." I am quite comfortable with the free exchange of opinion. You, on the other hand, seem to have some sort of partisan axe to grind. Just wondering why...

Do you really think these are facts:
Come now, are you sure these aren't opinions?

As stated above, my statement is opinion. And as I said earlier, I would never presume to speak for dmadman43. But from MY perspective, what dmadman43 said was as close to FACT as anything I've seen on a political debate on the DISboards in a long, long time.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
But from MY perspective, what dmadman43 said was as close to FACT as anything I've seen on a political debate on the DISboards in a long, long time.

So, it was "close" to a fact, but not "actually" a fact....

Hmmm....yes....I see

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by wvrevy
So, it was "close" to a fact, but not "actually" a fact....

Hmmm....yes....I see

As I am fond of saying, "Close enough for government work..." so it passes the "fact sniff" test for me. Looks like a fact, sounds like a fact, smells like a fact -- hmm, passes all my tests for a fact.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
As I am fond of saying, "Close enough for government work..." so it passes the "fact sniff" test for me. Looks like a fact, sounds like a fact, smells like a fact -- hmm, passes all my tests for a fact.

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

 

[gometros]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
ITA, especially when someone completely ignores questions addressed to them. I never claimed that the alleged inflammatory remark about Clinton I made was fact. If you can find where in that post I said, "This is a FACT", I'd like to see it. I have no problem admitting that what I posted was an opinion, based on my observations of former President Clinton's behavior while in office.

But you did, when you said

I would never assume to speak for dmadman43 -- but how is posting a statement of fact not adding value to the debate?

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

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
But from MY perspective, what dmadman43 said was as close to FACT as anything I've seen on a political debate on the DISboards in a long, long time.

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

dmadman43 states:
The Clintons ALWAYS have an alterior movtive. They are politics version of Tinkerbell.

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