Hillary Clinton --- Is this true?
- Thread starter we3luvdisney
- Start date
Kendra17
"Kendra17" is a consortium of political analysts a
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 1,919
You know, all you do is Bash Bush, praise Kerry. . .that's what I mean when you I state there's a lack of substance to your argument. . .
You're pretending I only gave you fringe conservative sources, and that's an absolutely false assertion on your part.
At least the "right" side of these so-called debates look for information, and READ it and look at it with a DISCERNING eye. And, we actually learn new information. . .
If you want to pretend that the 10 or so links I gave you are just completely worthless, be my guest. But, that's why, as you've accused me before, I think I am better informed than you, and that's what you probably glean from reading my posts.
Everything we use to prove our arguments (and they're proofs--no question) you refute blindly. You dismiss is all. I figured you wouldn't care if I went into Carter's attempt to undermine the first Bush. You'd say something like, "well, good for him". But when it comes to Clinton, I thought MAYBE you would approach it reasonably. I figured 250 sbvs affidavits might mean SOMETHING. ..I mean, WHY would they lie? If they think Kerry's a good commander, why would they lie? You accused them of money or some hidden agenda. . .what would be the point? You fail to use logid. . .PG, in particular, is completely rude, and she may be able to flame with the best, but you are all missing realism and logic.
That's why we think you're utopians. . .seeing the world the way you want it to be rather than how it really is.
You're pretending I only gave you fringe conservative sources, and that's an absolutely false assertion on your part.
At least the "right" side of these so-called debates look for information, and READ it and look at it with a DISCERNING eye. And, we actually learn new information. . .
If you want to pretend that the 10 or so links I gave you are just completely worthless, be my guest. But, that's why, as you've accused me before, I think I am better informed than you, and that's what you probably glean from reading my posts.
Everything we use to prove our arguments (and they're proofs--no question) you refute blindly. You dismiss is all. I figured you wouldn't care if I went into Carter's attempt to undermine the first Bush. You'd say something like, "well, good for him". But when it comes to Clinton, I thought MAYBE you would approach it reasonably. I figured 250 sbvs affidavits might mean SOMETHING. ..I mean, WHY would they lie? If they think Kerry's a good commander, why would they lie? You accused them of money or some hidden agenda. . .what would be the point? You fail to use logid. . .PG, in particular, is completely rude, and she may be able to flame with the best, but you are all missing realism and logic.
That's why we think you're utopians. . .seeing the world the way you want it to be rather than how it really is.
Sorry, bad phrasing on my part. I should have said along with being told that the avatar and countdown clock were insulting. But yes, there's one or two who, by various tactics, are trying to dissuade me from voicing my opinion. They're silly and won't work, but they're sure trying.
I've been to this rodeo before. I knew what the sites were going to be and it didn't take a brain surgeon to figure it out. Besides, I give what I get.
In fact, I couldn't even get this response typed, before the insults were tossed my way.
Kendra17
"Kendra17" is a consortium of political analysts a
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 1,919
well, hate is a strong word, but I certainly am not fond of how she portrays herself on here--and, I'm sure she'd say the same.
Okay. ..
So, we can't post Scripps Howard News pieces, any longer. . .unless tey are pro-Kerry.
We can't ever cite Lance Morrow, CNN, or Time, unless the article is Pro-Kerry?
We can cite the New Republic, of course, unless it prints something as absurd as speaking negatively of a Democrat.
We can't quote Frank Gaffney, experience be damned, cause he supports the Republican candidates.
We can't cite National Review--heaven forbid!!! Too controversial.
We can't quote Washington Post because they sometimes make mistakes---proof, they wrote the article I posted and it seemed negative towards Carter
We can't cite Douglas Brinkley, because his book wasn't 100percent flattering to Carter, it was just mostly flattering to Carter. We can quote his book Tour of Duty, though, since I think it's 100 percent flattering to Kerry.
Also, we can't quote books, unless they are ebooks online for free, since that is easily verifiable, and getting off your butt to go to the library or bookstore is too difficult for the liberals.
You guys are a joke. . .and, by not admitting the truth here, you've just made yourselves look very very foolish.
PS, I'm not usually wrong with this stuff. I'm very aware of current events, and would not go out on a limb to say anything unless I had facts to back me up.
You know, I've had it with you and your ignorant insults. Read your own posts. You call people names, you question their intelligence, you make snide remarks and you're as insulting, rude and arrogant as any poster I've ever encountered on these boards.
And believe me, that's saying a lot!
Kendra17
"Kendra17" is a consortium of political analysts a
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 1,919
You, Peachgirl, are the most dishonest person I've encountered. In the face of truths--not opinion--you can't even admit you're wrong.
Go down that rodeo before? I cited The NEw Republic, for god's sake. . .and you STLL can't admit you're wrong. Not ONCE can you say, "oh. . well, I didn't know that!"
You come off with fast responses but that just proves you think quickly--too quickly, as a matter of fact, to think about how silly you might sound.
Talk about arrogance. . .look in the mirror.
BedKnobbery2
<font color=blue>Saucy Pants!<br><font color=red>W
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2002
- Messages
- 1,385
Actually, Kendra, I *have* admitted I was wrong before. Right here, on this site. My guess is you've got your hackles up because not everyone automatically agrees with your point of view. You accuse anyone who disagrees with you of doing so out of hand, without regard to the "facts"; I submit to you that you are, in fact, guilty of that which you accuse.
Believe it or not, many people here are extremely well-informed. And it also just so happens that some of them happen to disagree with you. You have gathered an assemblage of "facts" and opinions, made deductions, and automatically accuse ANYONE who disagrees with those deductions as being woefully uninformed. Can you, at least, admit that it is possible--just the teeniest, tiniest, smallest iota of possibility here--that someone else can also be aware of some stated opinions and analysis of facts (which, by the way, is different from the actual facts themselves) and come to a different conclusion?
I could, if I wanted, attempt to open your eyes with a massive bulk of "facts" and opinions that are totally contrary to what you often assert. However, I realize both the futility of such an endeavor and the likely deconstruction of any sources I may choose to back up what I consider to be those truths. So often, I'll refrain.
You asked why people seem so bent on invalidating the "sources" of many of the truths you hold dear; I attempted to explain to you why that is, and why that should be (again, on both sides of the fence). And you come back, again, with the same accusations--that, obviously, if someone disagrees with you, they must be malinformed, or uninformed. I really don't know what else can be said, but I will say this--I admire your tenacity.
Believe it or not, many people here are extremely well-informed. And it also just so happens that some of them happen to disagree with you. You have gathered an assemblage of "facts" and opinions, made deductions, and automatically accuse ANYONE who disagrees with those deductions as being woefully uninformed. Can you, at least, admit that it is possible--just the teeniest, tiniest, smallest iota of possibility here--that someone else can also be aware of some stated opinions and analysis of facts (which, by the way, is different from the actual facts themselves) and come to a different conclusion?
I could, if I wanted, attempt to open your eyes with a massive bulk of "facts" and opinions that are totally contrary to what you often assert. However, I realize both the futility of such an endeavor and the likely deconstruction of any sources I may choose to back up what I consider to be those truths. So often, I'll refrain.
You asked why people seem so bent on invalidating the "sources" of many of the truths you hold dear; I attempted to explain to you why that is, and why that should be (again, on both sides of the fence). And you come back, again, with the same accusations--that, obviously, if someone disagrees with you, they must be malinformed, or uninformed. I really don't know what else can be said, but I will say this--I admire your tenacity.
Kendra17
"Kendra17" is a consortium of political analysts a
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 1,919
You know, I actually could. . .if I were only using sources that you could accuse of inaccuracy . .but, they were not. . .
And, even in the face of articles from sources you would trust OTHERWISE, some of your dem-friends automatically disregard it.
In several posts back, I mentioned those sources. Not one of those sources are accused of being inaccurate, yet you still disregard it. . .this happened last week with the Financial Times and the Uranium/Niger connection. some of you IMMEDIATELY disregarded it becasue it was the Financial Times--a quite reputable paper.
All of you might not see it, but this makes you look foolish. . .sure, say the same thing about me. . .it wouldn't be true, though. . .I've sourced what I said, I knew the information immediately, had to find sources to back me up to you, KEPT on finding sources, and none of it's good enough.
You can say among yourselves that you've won this round, but you haven't . .. you haven't sourced any evidence DISPROVING the articles I posted. You were clear (well, PG was) she was ready to dismiss my"garbage" before she even read the sources.
That's it. . it's clear to more impartial people and the Conservative voters out there that I had the stronger argument. You don't want to admit it? That's fine. . .but, you've just proved how useless it is to discuss anything with any of you. Not ONE of you said, "oh, well, okay, carter's kind of a jerk, but this doesn't reflect on Kerry."
If you would have said that, you would have shown some reason.
BedKnobbery2
<font color=blue>Saucy Pants!<br><font color=red>W
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2002
- Messages
- 1,385
*sigh*
Actually, Kendra, you asserted that Clinton hated Carter. You also asserted that he was a big mean nasty. I hate to break it to you, I really do, but you didn't post "facts" that backed that up. You posted facts that led to opinions that led to those conclusions. There is a difference. There really, really is. I understand it is difficult to see--I honestly do, because when we believe something in our heart of hearts it is easy to take opinion as fact--but there it is.
I've never said that Carter is a saint. I've said he's a genteel man. You, yourself, have admited that that is the image many have of him; there's a reason for that. And it isn't because, as you want to think, everyone who holds that opinion has been duped. It is because, by and large, that is how he acts and how he appears. Sure, I could post many "facts" and situations and opinions that point to his saintlihood; some people would argue with me, and rightly so. Because he isn't a saint. But neither is he a demon. Which seems to be the conclusion you want everyone here to agree with; but, again, there aren't facts to back it up......just opinions.
Actually, Kendra, you asserted that Clinton hated Carter. You also asserted that he was a big mean nasty. I hate to break it to you, I really do, but you didn't post "facts" that backed that up. You posted facts that led to opinions that led to those conclusions. There is a difference. There really, really is. I understand it is difficult to see--I honestly do, because when we believe something in our heart of hearts it is easy to take opinion as fact--but there it is.
I've never said that Carter is a saint. I've said he's a genteel man. You, yourself, have admited that that is the image many have of him; there's a reason for that. And it isn't because, as you want to think, everyone who holds that opinion has been duped. It is because, by and large, that is how he acts and how he appears. Sure, I could post many "facts" and situations and opinions that point to his saintlihood; some people would argue with me, and rightly so. Because he isn't a saint. But neither is he a demon. Which seems to be the conclusion you want everyone here to agree with; but, again, there aren't facts to back it up......just opinions.
we3luvdisney
<font color=blue>I admit it. I am a <font color=pu
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 2,017
Mmmmm, I'm sure the secret service is quite selective as who sits next to a former President. I don't know all the rules, but I'm sure someone had to inform the secret service who they would like to sit next to the former President.
Saffron
Palm Tree Hugger
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2001
- Messages
- 8,454
Kendra17 ... I've come to the conclusion that you just LOVE to get people all stirred up with inane, "I'm right, too bad you can't admit you're wrong, all these opinions are facts, just pretend they are" posts. You are cracking me up! 
Thanks for the laughs, I need them lately. Keep on posting, you make the liberals/Democrats look good! 
Thanks for the laughs, I need them lately. Keep on posting, you make the liberals/Democrats look good! 
Kendra17
"Kendra17" is a consortium of political analysts a
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 1,919
Okay. Let me try and be clear.
I stated that Carter was hated by Clinton. I have read this numerous times. . .i know this to be true because it has become part of my frame of reference the same way the sky is blue.
More importantly, I told you Carter undermined Clinton and the first Bush.
I gave you some examples--Haiti and Bosnia for Clinton, and Iraq for Bush.
You asked me for sources.
I found many many sources from many reputable sites. Unfortunately, I can't find a source that says, "Clinton hated Carter". I could, however, give you several sources that would make ANYONE hate Carter if they were in Clinton's shoes. Maybe Clinton now likes him. . .does it matter? The point, if that's your singular issue is that Carter undermined Clinton with Haiti in a way that would make most sane people hate him. Is that better? Back in the 90s, I read about Clinton's feelings regarding Carter several times. I can't source this particular right now with a link.
However, I sourced Frank Gaffney, the New Republic, Douglas Brinkley's book, Washington Post, Scripps Howard News Service, Lance Morrow of Time on CNN. . .National Review. . . I gave many many sources that prove my assertion that Carter undermined Clinton and the first Bush.
This made absolutely no difference to any of you. None. Okay, you want me to admit I was wrong? I'll admit that I cannot, at least now, find the phrase on line. I can't admit I'm wrong about this, though, because besides reading it at other times, all the data I STILL found today would point to that same conclusion. You are giving a different set of criteria for articles that I introduce to you than articles you find and read yourself. The Washington Post, particularly, just mentioned the weirdness of the whole situation, the inconsistencies and incongruities. . .the conclusion, for anyone, is there.
http://www-cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0008/15/lkl.00.html
in this Larry King transcript, even Carter admits they weren't "close", but denies a rift. . .still, with the information presented on the other links, you can't accept anything I sent you as fact?
Obviously, this statement isn't proof, like you need, but it's an interesting addition to the rest of the links I sent you today:
KING: You couldn't have picked a better time. It was a little after 10:00 Eastern time, was perfect on time. You didn't come -- was there ever a rift between you and President Clinton?
CARTER: There never has been a rift but I didn't get along as well with President Clinton as I had hoped. My whole life is involved in the Carter Center now. And, you know, we were kind of excluded from a lot of things in which I thought we could be of assistance. And when I have had a problem in Washington in the last eight years, I generally just picked up the phone and called Al Gore and said, "Al, can you give me some entree into who's responsible for this particular issue in the State Department or the Agriculture Department or the Treasury Department?" and so forth.
Honestly, I would say i'm wrong if someone would give me contrary information. Think I'm arrogant, but the only thing I'm wrong about regarding today's exchange is that I keep thinking reasonable discussions are possible. I don't think they are. Will I try some more? Maybe, because maybe I'm wrong in thinking that reasonable discussions are not possible.
You know what I don't know about? I'm the first to admit I am not completely knowledgeable regarding economic issues. . .I haven't participated in those discussions on the board because of this. And, some of the data the left has provided seems reasonable to me. However, I AM knowledgeable about the stuff I do talk about. . . the things I do participate in. You aren't willing to give me credit for anything I have put up here. . .so, that leads me to believe you just won't. .. you'll attempt to discredit me and/or every single source up here. How can one even attempt to discuss this stuff with that kind of attitude?
I stated that Carter was hated by Clinton. I have read this numerous times. . .i know this to be true because it has become part of my frame of reference the same way the sky is blue.
More importantly, I told you Carter undermined Clinton and the first Bush.
I gave you some examples--Haiti and Bosnia for Clinton, and Iraq for Bush.
You asked me for sources.
I found many many sources from many reputable sites. Unfortunately, I can't find a source that says, "Clinton hated Carter". I could, however, give you several sources that would make ANYONE hate Carter if they were in Clinton's shoes. Maybe Clinton now likes him. . .does it matter? The point, if that's your singular issue is that Carter undermined Clinton with Haiti in a way that would make most sane people hate him. Is that better? Back in the 90s, I read about Clinton's feelings regarding Carter several times. I can't source this particular right now with a link.
However, I sourced Frank Gaffney, the New Republic, Douglas Brinkley's book, Washington Post, Scripps Howard News Service, Lance Morrow of Time on CNN. . .National Review. . . I gave many many sources that prove my assertion that Carter undermined Clinton and the first Bush.
This made absolutely no difference to any of you. None. Okay, you want me to admit I was wrong? I'll admit that I cannot, at least now, find the phrase on line. I can't admit I'm wrong about this, though, because besides reading it at other times, all the data I STILL found today would point to that same conclusion. You are giving a different set of criteria for articles that I introduce to you than articles you find and read yourself. The Washington Post, particularly, just mentioned the weirdness of the whole situation, the inconsistencies and incongruities. . .the conclusion, for anyone, is there.
http://www-cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0008/15/lkl.00.html
in this Larry King transcript, even Carter admits they weren't "close", but denies a rift. . .still, with the information presented on the other links, you can't accept anything I sent you as fact?
Obviously, this statement isn't proof, like you need, but it's an interesting addition to the rest of the links I sent you today:
KING: You couldn't have picked a better time. It was a little after 10:00 Eastern time, was perfect on time. You didn't come -- was there ever a rift between you and President Clinton?
CARTER: There never has been a rift but I didn't get along as well with President Clinton as I had hoped. My whole life is involved in the Carter Center now. And, you know, we were kind of excluded from a lot of things in which I thought we could be of assistance. And when I have had a problem in Washington in the last eight years, I generally just picked up the phone and called Al Gore and said, "Al, can you give me some entree into who's responsible for this particular issue in the State Department or the Agriculture Department or the Treasury Department?" and so forth.
Honestly, I would say i'm wrong if someone would give me contrary information. Think I'm arrogant, but the only thing I'm wrong about regarding today's exchange is that I keep thinking reasonable discussions are possible. I don't think they are. Will I try some more? Maybe, because maybe I'm wrong in thinking that reasonable discussions are not possible.
You know what I don't know about? I'm the first to admit I am not completely knowledgeable regarding economic issues. . .I haven't participated in those discussions on the board because of this. And, some of the data the left has provided seems reasonable to me. However, I AM knowledgeable about the stuff I do talk about. . . the things I do participate in. You aren't willing to give me credit for anything I have put up here. . .so, that leads me to believe you just won't. .. you'll attempt to discredit me and/or every single source up here. How can one even attempt to discuss this stuff with that kind of attitude?
BedKnobbery2
<font color=blue>Saucy Pants!<br><font color=red>W
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2002
- Messages
- 1,385
*sigh*
I can certainly admit that you've posted many sources that you believe support your beliefs. And I can admit that many people can read those sources, and surmise that Carter acted to undermine Clinton. However, I cannot agree that he acted as such in order to willfully undermine him, nor can I agree that it leads to the natural conclusion that Clinton hates him. Can you see that it is possible that someone can disagree with what someone has done, but still respect other things they've done? And that that matter of disagreement does not mean that one person must therefore hate the other? I think the reason you cannot find a source--any source--that shows Clinton demonstrating he actively hates Carter is because--it isn't a fact. It's an opinion, based on conclusions, based upon a series of incidents taken indepentently, without looking at the whole.
For example, I could go to a restaurant, and order a meal--let's say, Pad Thai. I could find that specific meal very distasteful, and may even say, "Wow, that was bad Pad Thai." Now, someone could easily conclude that I, therefore, hate Pad Thai. But, in fact, I love Pad Thai--when its good. See what I mean?
I think the absolutely truest thing you have ever written is this: "i know this to be true because it has become part of my frame of reference". I agree that you believe it to be true--however, I respectfully disagree that it is therefore undeniably fact.
I can certainly admit that you've posted many sources that you believe support your beliefs. And I can admit that many people can read those sources, and surmise that Carter acted to undermine Clinton. However, I cannot agree that he acted as such in order to willfully undermine him, nor can I agree that it leads to the natural conclusion that Clinton hates him. Can you see that it is possible that someone can disagree with what someone has done, but still respect other things they've done? And that that matter of disagreement does not mean that one person must therefore hate the other? I think the reason you cannot find a source--any source--that shows Clinton demonstrating he actively hates Carter is because--it isn't a fact. It's an opinion, based on conclusions, based upon a series of incidents taken indepentently, without looking at the whole.
For example, I could go to a restaurant, and order a meal--let's say, Pad Thai. I could find that specific meal very distasteful, and may even say, "Wow, that was bad Pad Thai." Now, someone could easily conclude that I, therefore, hate Pad Thai. But, in fact, I love Pad Thai--when its good. See what I mean?
I think the absolutely truest thing you have ever written is this: "i know this to be true because it has become part of my frame of reference". I agree that you believe it to be true--however, I respectfully disagree that it is therefore undeniably fact.
Kendra17
"Kendra17" is a consortium of political analysts a
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 1,919
You are denying what I wrote in the previous post. . .I said, for an instant, forget the phrase "clinton hated carter". . .the bigger point of my argument, bedknobbery, was that Carter UNDERMINED both the first Bush and Clinton administrations. That is the point you are neglecting to admit. And, I did give you enough sources. I admitted to you that no, I cannot find a source that says, "Clinton hated Carter" But, I found sources that Carter undermined Carter, and they were from various sources and they weren't opinion, as much as you say. The only reason that I included the Larry King bit is because it AT LEAST states they didn't get along too well, and that Larry King thought there was some kind of rift. After Clinton's foreign policy is undermined (as in articles you continue to dismiss), well, there'd be a bit of a rift.
I concede I can't force you to admit you're wrong. . . I admit I was wrong to try. That's about it.
-
Add These New Walt Disney World Treats to Your Must-Try List
-
Check Out Jack Skellington's NEW LOOK & Where to Find Him at MNSSHP!
-
Disney Treasure Itinerary Changes Due to Tropical Storm Erin
-
The New Disney Merch You Missed This Week
-
The Best Times to Book a DVC Stay at Walt Disney World
-
Can You Bring Alcoholic Beverages on a Disney Cruise Line Ship?
-
5 Panels at Destination D23 Likely to Reveal Park News
Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE
