Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The last several years have proven you wrong.> No, they haven't. <There's simply no defending this Administration's conduct of the war anymore, and it's criminal for anyone to do so.> What nonsense. No matter what your opinion of the Iraq war is, the facts are the facts, and you should not misrepresent them, or accuse those of setting the record straight of behaving in criminal behavior.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <"This was classic bait and switch — focus on that as opposed to focusing on what's happened," the former president said.> Well, he would know.
Originally Posted By gadzuux So would you. Do you have anything substantive to say about what the clinton actually said? Or - like the GOP with the patreaus ad, will you just gloss over what was actually said and rush right to the fun part - the righteous indignation? I was channel surfing last night and stumbled across sean hannity blustering about a poster for an upcoming street fair here in SF this weekend. It's in the style of michelangelo's 'last supper' but with leather studs and drag queens taking the roles of the apostles. Predictably there was some religious wing-nut expressing horror and outrage at the blasphemy of it all. And as usual, they completely miss the point - it's intentionally designed to tick off those that would overreact to such a thing. They pretend to be mortally offended when actually they're as giddy as a schoolgirl - they found yet another piece of evidence of the spawn of satan. They're manipulated into making fools of themselves publicly. And that in itself is 'art' - even if it is so easy to do.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "What nonsense. No matter what your opinion of the Iraq war is, the facts are the facts, and you should not misrepresent them, or accuse those of setting the record straight of behaving in criminal behavior." Okay, O.J.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Do you have anything substantive to say about what the clinton actually said?> I've already responded to all the substantive things President Clinton said. <Or - like the GOP with the patreaus ad, will you just gloss over what was actually said and rush right to the fun part - the righteous indignation?> I've heard plenty of people respond to what was actually said, and the indignation was appropriate.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I've already responded to all the substantive things President Clinton said.> No, you haven't.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <No, you haven't.> See post 67. <I'm certainly not seeing them.> Of course you aren't. There's a reason for that.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<No, you haven't.>> <See post 67.> See post 66. <<I'm certainly not seeing them.>> <Of course you aren't. There's a reason for that.> Because they aren't there? If they are, just type in a response number where you did, please. That should take two keystrokes, less than another snarky reply, after you've already been asked for a response number. I looked through this thread again, and I don't see you responding to Clinton. Unless by "I've already responded to all the substantive things President Clinton said." you meant there was nothing substantive to respond to. Which which be an extremely lame cop-out to gadzuux's question, even for you.
Originally Posted By DAR Is there a difference between this ad and Fred Phelps and his crazy loons protesting soldiers funerals?
Originally Posted By ecdc DAR, you're missing the point. No one has defended the ad. I think it was a stupid, tasteless ad. The issue is Republicans using an ad to rally the base with their faux outrage. How many Democrats in Congress have spent time and government dollars whining about Phelps?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Unless by "I've already responded to all the substantive things President Clinton said." you meant there was nothing substantive to respond to.> That's exactly what I meant. Pretty slow on the uptake, even for you. <Which which be an extremely lame cop-out to gadzuux's question, even for you.> It was a perfectly reasonable response. As was the response to the ad.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Unless by "I've already responded to all the substantive things President Clinton said." you meant there was nothing substantive to respond to.>> <That's exactly what I meant. Pretty slow on the uptake, even for you.> I did think of that at first, but then I thought, "Nah... he could be THAT lame, could he?" Yes, he could. <<Which which be an extremely lame cop-out to gadzuux's question, even for you.>> <It was a perfectly reasonable response. As was the response to the ad.> On your part, it was a cop-out. On the part of the faux outrage of the GOP, it was calculated, cynical, and ridiculous to expect people who had nothing to do with it to somehow disavow it; as ridiculous as expecting anyone with an R after their name should be forced to disavow statements from right-wingers that THEY have nothing to do with.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh You can repeat yourself as often as you like; you'll still be wrong.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 You can assert that as many times as you like, but... Newsflash: there's no right or wrong to whether the GOP overreacted or whether their outrage was real or faux. That's all opinion. You've got yours and I've got mine, and that's fine. I say this because you've shown an inability lately to distinguish between opinion and fact (see: Bush got a C minus thread).
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I say this because you've shown an inability lately to distinguish between opinion and fact> I'm not the one demanding that you prove your opinion. I just note that it is wrong.
Originally Posted By DAR So the Democrats wasted as much time and taxpayer money by condemning the "phony soldiers" comment Rush Limbaugh on his radio show. Look I don't want to defend either Moveon.or or Rush Limbaugh. What they did and said was offensive, but then again it's their right to say it. Again this why the approval ratings are so low for those in Washington, because they do nothing but waste our time. And then people wonder why I consider both Republicans and Democrats to be no different.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I say this because you've shown an inability lately to distinguish between opinion and fact> <I'm not the one demanding that you prove your opinion. I just note that it is wrong.> An opinion, by definition, can not be wrong, or right. However, assertions of fact, such as yours that Bush had a higher SAT and GPA than Gore, can be proven wrong. The former was proven wrong in short order; the latter can not be shown because we don't know Gore's GPA, yet you continue to claim it anyway. This is the difference between opinion and fact, and assertions of opinion and fact. You should learn it.
