Originally Posted By jonvn Post 120: Why do you expect any sort of thing from this guy when you know he constantly lies about anything he can if it suits his purpose? What's the point?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It wouldn't have been a road to nowhere if you hadn't said flat out that I don't admit when I was wrong, I had to point out where I had done so, you couldn't just say "oh, okay," but instead kept attacking...> There's your revisionist history again. Post 51 is where you say I don't admit when I'm wrong. I didn't claim that you don't admit when you're wrong until my response to post 51. You are the one who started the personal attacks, and rather than admit it, you're distorting what happened, again. <what's the big hairy difference in practical terms between Clinton replacing all the attorneys upon taking office, and Bush replacing all but a handful and then replacing that handful within a few months? What's the big distinction?> The difference is that under President Bush most of the attorneys knew when they were leaving, so they could line up jobs and tie up loose ends.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Why do you expect any sort of thing from this guy when you know he constantly lies about anything he can if it suits his purpose? What's the point?> Please stop lying about me.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<It wouldn't have been a road to nowhere if you hadn't said flat out that I don't admit when I was wrong, I had to point out where I had done so, you couldn't just say "oh, okay," but instead kept attacking...>> <There's your revisionist history again.> No, that's your M.O. < Post 51 is where you say I don't admit when I'm wrong. I didn't claim that you don't admit when you're wrong until my response to post 51. You are the one who started the personal attacks, and rather than admit it, you're distorting what happened, again.> It was not a personal attack to say you don't admit when you're wrong. As we're continuing to see, it's a simple statement of fact. You also claimed that I didn't admit when I was wrong, after I'd done so not 20 posts earlier in the SAME dang thread. So you were wrong on both counts. That's not a distortion, it's there for all to see. <<what's the big hairy difference in practical terms between Clinton replacing all the attorneys upon taking office, and Bush replacing all but a handful and then replacing that handful within a few months? What's the big distinction?>> <The difference is that under President Bush most of the attorneys knew when they were leaving, so they could line up jobs and tie up loose ends.> Unbelievable. Are you HOPING most people are ignorant of how the process works? US Attorney terms are four years. A presidential term is - ta da! - four years. It has been standard practice for quite some time now for a new president of the opposite party from his predecessor to replace his predecessor's attorneys soon after taking office. All US attorneys know this. The guys Carter appointed knew in November of '80 they'd be leaving when Reagan took over, and of course they did. The guys Bush I appointed knew in November '92 they'd be leaving when Clinton took over, and of course they did. And guess what? The guys Clinton hired knew in November 2000 (or, I guess, early December 2000) that they'd be leaving when Bush II took over. Are you claiming they didn't? There simply was no big difference in practical terms between the outgoing Bush I attorneys when Clinton came in and the outgoing clinton attorneys when Bush II came in. You're just making yourself look foolish continuing to claim there was.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It was not a personal attack to say you don't admit when you're wrong. As we're continuing to see, it's a simple statement of fact.> It cannot be a statement of fact, because it's not true. It certainly didn't add anything to the debate, except to send it down the "road to nowhere". <You also claimed that I didn't admit when I was wrong, after I'd done so not 20 posts earlier in the SAME dang thread.> More distortion. What I did was disagree when you claimed you admit it when you are wrong. I disagreed because you often don't, just as you're doing now. <Are you HOPING most people are ignorant of how the process works?> No, but obviously you are. <It has been standard practice for quite some time now for a new president of the opposite party from his predecessor to replace his predecessor's attorneys soon after taking office.> No, the standard practice is to let them serve out their terms, then replace them. Not to fire them all at once, a few months before their terms expire. <You're just making yourself look foolish continuing to claim there was.> What I'm doing is continuing to state the facts. I think arguing against the facts, or distorting what they are, is what makes someone look foolish.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<It was not a personal attack to say you don't admit when you're wrong. As we're continuing to see, it's a simple statement of fact.>> <It cannot be a statement of fact, because it's not true. It certainly didn't add anything to the debate, except to send it down the "road to nowhere".> But it is true. In fact, we're seeing it right here. You simply can't admit when you get it wrong. If you'd simply done so to begin with, we wouldn't be on this road to nowhere. <<You also claimed that I didn't admit when I was wrong, after I'd done so not 20 posts earlier in the SAME dang thread.>> <More distortion. What I did was disagree when you claimed you admit it when you are wrong. I disagreed because you often don't, just as you're doing now.> THAT'S distortion. You didn't say "well, you don't do it often, but at least you did so here..." you said flat out that I don't admit it when I'm wrong, when I had done that very thing on this very thread. If you meant the former, you should have said the former. You didn't, and that's distortion too. <<Are you HOPING most people are ignorant of how the process works?>> <No, but obviously you are.> Projecting. <<It has been standard practice for quite some time now for a new president of the opposite party from his predecessor to replace his predecessor's attorneys soon after taking office.>> <No, the standard practice is to let them serve out their terms, then replace them. Not to fire them all at once, a few months before their terms expire.> I notice you left out part of that quote. Are you hoping people wouldn't notice? US attorney terms are 4 years. So are presidential terms. So in practical terms, they expire at just about the same time, and an incoming president of the opposite party as his predecessor either fires them and replaces them, or lets their terms expire (which typically happens no more than a couple of months after the president takes over) and replaces them. In PRACTICAL terms (which is what I asked for), it's the same thing. Only by parsing and parsing can you try to make it look like Clinton and Bush II did anything different in practical terms. It's not going to work. <<You're just making yourself look foolish continuing to claim there was.>> <What I'm doing is continuing to state the facts. I think arguing against the facts, or distorting what they are, is what makes someone look foolish.> It is you who is distorting, and parsing, to attempt to say that Clinton's and Bush's actions were appreciably different in practical terms. They simply were not.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And it's there for anyone to see.> Well, at least half of your last post is correct.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Well, no I'm not wrong. I challenged you to explain why Clinton's actions and Bush's actions were appreciably different in practical terms, and you couldn't. You fell back on technicalities as usual ("serve out their terms" - which just happen to be the same as presidential terms - indeed), but the fact remains; in practical terms, Clinton's and Bush's actions were essentially the same. Same thing that Reagan did, too. And Carter, and every modern president from a different party than his predecessor. That's there for anyone to see as well, and your attempts to paint them as different aren't going to work.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I challenged you to explain why Clinton's actions and Bush's actions were appreciably different in practical terms, and you couldn't.> No, I did it. There was a clear difference between the actions of Presidents Bush and Clinton. President Clinton fired all the US attorneys upon taking office, and President Bush didn't. You can try to blur the distinction for partisan purposes, the facts are the facts.
Originally Posted By jonvn I love how he says he's done something and almost never does. And when asked to show evidence, he thinks he manages to evade by saying "to what end, no one will believe it." It's must be great for doug to live in a world of his own deluded fantasy. It beats reality, I'm sure.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <No, I did it. There was a clear difference between the actions of Presidents Bush and Clinton. President Clinton fired all the US attorneys upon taking office, and President Bush didn't. You can try to blur the distinction for partisan purposes, the facts are the facts.> This is just laughable. Bush replaced all but a handful immediately, and replaced that handful within a couple of months. The practical effect was identical. It's a distinction without a difference, as they say.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I love how he says he's done something and almost never does.> You're projecting again. Any reasonable person can read this thread and see that I did what I said I did, and that you are the delusional one.
