Originally Posted By Mr X Did I say that Clinton never lies? No. I said "on this issue", did I not? I don't really see any reason for him to lie about this issue, given the fact that he's got nothing to lose either way.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I sure do wish you guys would quit letting DouglasDubh slap you around. It's unseemly.. jonvn used to consider him a troll... I kept insisting that at his best he was better than that... but it does get trollish at times.
Originally Posted By DlandDug A troll is someone who makes outrageous assertions, regardless of content, only to get maximum reaction. While there are many here whose opinions are disagreeable, I vehemently disagree that they are motivated by nothing more than a desire to cause trouble.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <jonvn used to consider him a troll> And jonvn doesn't post here anymore, does he? While I don't know the reasons he was asked to leave, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that one factor was his tendency to be uncivil to those who consistently dared to question or disagree with his opinions.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 As I said, I never considered DD a troll either - lots of nonsense and semantics and etc. but at his best worth hearing from. I was wondering about mawnck's comments.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I never considered DD a troll either - lots of nonsense and semantics and etc.> I think the same thing about you. Now can we go back to discussing the issues?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Now can we go back to discussing the issues?<< You'd think so. But let's review what Douglas has had to say on the "issues" so far in this thread. Douglas made one post with actual assertions in it. They weren't backed up with any reasoning or evidence, just more of the same authoritative statements we've come to expect. But at least there was *something* there. But following that, we get: >>No, it's not. And nothing you or Dabob said actually refuted my points.<< and >>An assertion isn't proof of anything.<< and >>I've seen it before, and it doesn't. President Clinton can claim whatever he wants, but the facts tell a different story.<< and >>And jonvn doesn't post here anymore, does he? While I don't know the reasons he was asked to leave, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that one factor was his tendency to be uncivil to those who consistently dared to question or disagree with his opinions.<< These are not selective copy and pastes. This is the totality of his posts. So it's rich of him to say we need to discuss "the issues" when the vast, vast majority of his own posts fail to do so, and instead engage in one-liners that neither refute nor analyze nor offer a reasoned perspective.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Now can we go back to discussing the issues?> I can. But I'm not the only one here who has requested you keep the nonsense/semantics/argument clinic stuff down to a minimum.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <These are not selective copy and pastes. This is the totality of his posts. So it's rich of him to say we need to discuss "the issues" when the vast, vast majority of his own posts fail to do so, and instead engage in one-liners that neither refute nor analyze nor offer a reasoned perspective.> Oh brother. I made one post which expressed my opinion, based on reading a lot of facts over several years. It was immediately dismissed as "a load of hooey" based on the claims of President Clinton, that paragon of truthfulness, who of course would not admit that he did not do enough to fight terrorism. If you don't agree with my opinion, feel free to state so. If you'd like me to expand on the reasons why I have that opinion, feel free to ask. But don't pretend I'm refusing to discuss the issues because someone else is being dismissive and derogatory.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'm not the only one here who has requested you keep the nonsense/semantics/argument clinic stuff down to a minimum.> If you'd like to start discussing the issues with facts and logic, all you need to do is start discussing the issues with facts and logic.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I always do. I don't always have a partner, unless it's someone like vbdad55. Just today, in the Palin bridge discussion, it was me who provided facts, and logic. It was you who brought neither, only what you're "read" (presumably from sources as biased as you are). You'd also "read" that McCain had met Palin several times prior to the announcement, only to be refuted by facts. At least on that one you manned up and admitted it. Would that you would more often.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I always do.> No, you don't, and I've pointed out multiple times. You're not doing it right now, either. <Would that you would more often.> I think the same thing of you.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 That entire post consists of "no, it isn't"'s. No substance whatsoever. In all our back and forth today, the only substance has come from me - about the bridge, etc. You're come back with "no it isn't" and its analogues. And anyone can go back and read and see that this is true. Unfortunately, as usual, you project yourself on to me, but the evidence is right there to the contrary.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Again, if you'd like to start discussing the issues with facts and logic, all you need to do is start discussing the issues with facts and logic.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 And if anyone wants to see which of us has done so and which of us has fallen back on "no it isn't"'s and endless quotations of #187, it's easy to do.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh And if anyone wants to see which of us started making personal comments rather than discussing the issues, that's easy to do as well.
Originally Posted By mawnck In all the topics, please. He's got you doing his dance, and it's driving me bananas.
