Tips for Democrat's on July 4th
- Thread starter wintersprings
- Start date
awpitt
Main Streeter
That's your opinion. Not a fact.
Bann
Doris Day meets Lady Gaga
LOL.
awpitt
Main Streeter
Looks like Andy was right. Go ahead and pay your $30 for Patterson's book of lies.
It's useless.
All this will goand Bann will just say your sources are biased, because it's not republicankoolaidwire.com
AndyMarquisLIVE
New Member
Look like Bann's pulling the "I'm right, you're wrong"
crap everyone pulled when I was in Elementary School. This thread is incredible. Amazing what some of you righties do when presented with opposing fact.
More and more like the DU everyday.
AndyMarquisLIVE
New Member
The funny part is I'm not even a Democrat. These righties just spew bull#### left and right, and when they're called out on it, they automatically label that person a socialist.I'm so glad I'm not one of the only democrats here anymore.
Bann
Doris Day meets Lady Gaga
What difference does it make? I read the book. Did you? It's your word against Patterson's. He was there. He was a Lt. Col. in the Air Force who was there. It doesn't bother me if you don't believe it or not.
Look like Bann's pulling the "I'm right, you're wrong"
This thread is incredible. Amazing what some of you righties do when presented with opposing fact.
More and more like the DU everyday.
Well, well. You seem to love to attracting attention to yourself around here, what with all your flamboyant use of multiple smilies and grandiose exclamations of superiority. For someone who purports to hate it so much, that is.
And it's not opposing facts. You're picking nits with the facts. But whatever!
AndyMarquisLIVE
New Member
It's not a fact, it's one person's opinion.
But, that's typical of you. 20 people could be in a crowd. 1 person would tell you Clinton shot someone. The other 19 would tell you he didn't and you (and the other rightie wackos) would believe the 1 person and proclaim their word "fact."
awpitt
Main Streeter
It's not my word against his. I'm not making any claims about what may or may not have happened during the Clinton admin. Yea, he was there and so were alot of other more honorable military aids. None of whom are supporting Patterson's claims nor are they breaking confidentialality in order to make a buck.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Well, exactly. Media Matters is a site which specifically claims to exist to "correct conservative misinformation".
While it's true that being specifically partisan doesn't mean you're incorrect, it lacks considerable credbility. Anyone's gonna lack credibility when their stated purpose is to prove the other guy wrong.
AndyMarquisLIVE
New Member
And then when I posted a link to FactCheck.org, that was also a liberal biased site because it proved Bann and the other righties wrong.
What is the SOMD Forums definition of a fair and balanced news site?
Wait, let me guess.
Is it Human Events, World Net "BREAKING NEWS CHENEY'S STEPPING DOWN" Daily or is it FOX News?
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
It's not a fact, it's one person's opinion.
But, that's typical of you. 20 people could be in a crowd. 1 person would tell you Clinton shot someone. The other 19 would tell you he didn't and you (and the other rightie wackos) would believe the 1 person and proclaim their word "fact."
Yeah - and 20 people could drive by a highway accident and say no one got hurt - except for the one who was actually IN the car who disagrees. Goes to first-hand information.
20 gang members say one of their guys didn't do it - and one squeals and says he did. Goes to credibility.
Then there's the 20 people who saw a UFO and one who saw an airplane. I'll go with the most believable story.
*NUMBERS* don't prove a story. As Grissom always says on CSI - "people lie; evidence never does". But in lieu of evidence, I'd go with the closest witness with no reason to lie, who is the most credible and can demonstrate that they have good reason to know the truth of the matter. If he has a cockamamie story or an ax to grind, I'll dismiss it. If the other 19 fall into that category, I'll believe the one.
AndyMarquisLIVE
New Member
In this particular instance though, it's one person's word against the other.
When confronted with information about bin Laden, Bann resoted to this book and said it is absolute fact. Bann thinks I should spend $35 for someone's book because they think it's fact.
Mind you, the book claims Democrats were never focued on National Security and Terrorism.
Richard Clarke says Bill Clinton was committed to anti-terrorism than Bushie was and Bushie only got concerned about it after 9-11.
Bann immedaetly would write off Richard Clarke, even though a few other people to come out of the White House have basically said Bushie's a partisan hack and that Clarke's right.
When it comes to evidence, a few people on here only believe what suits their agenda (just like the people over at the DU). Anything else is either biased mis-information or is a lie.
And, as numerous websites have noted, back in 1996, there was nothing we could do about Bin Laden. Even if Clinton nabbed him, we didn't have enough evidence to hold him. And, if we did hold him anyways, you know every Rightie would be out there with their pitchforks calling for Clinton's impeachment.
Yet, numerous sources said Bush also sat back and did nothing, up until 9-11. Again, what's to believe?
The righties will believe anything that suits their agenda, those of us real conservatives (like you and I) would rather hold back from partisan flaming and find out what the truth is.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
The righties will believe anything that suits their agenda, those of us real conservatives (like you and I) would rather hold back from partisan flaming and find out what the truth is.
Don't put me in the same category as yourself. I don't resort to the same level of name-calling, labelling, stereotyping and childishness that you so often do. You are doing exactly what you accuse others of, and in doing so remove all sense of credibility.
AndyMarquisLIVE
New Member
I've tried taking the high road, but you can't argue that a liberal is right about something and take the high road here.
I mean, you show people factual proof about something on here (in this case, bin Laden and Bill Clinton) and they tell you you're wrong because a book says otherwise.
Being President of the United States, easier said than done. If you're a liberal, all the righties are going to criticize you because you're undermining their religion. If you're a right wing president, all the liberals are going to insult you because you try to make things equal. :shrug:
It's easy for everyone else to sit in their chairs making $80,000 with their degrees in aerospace and second guess everything Clinton did as President.
I don't remember much from the Clinton years, but I do remember gas wasn't $4.00/gallon and I do remember Americans being more concerned about themselves than they were with other peoples' misery.
Bush, on the other hand, is so far to the right on the political circle that he shows up on the left side of the radar screen. All accounts from liberals to conservatives that have worked with the dude say he's a partisan hack who makes his decisions based purely on whatever will help polish this turd of a legacy he has. But, it's not fair to judge him off the word of others because I'm not inside and it's all hearsay. :shrug:
I just can't believe the stuff I see on here on a daily basis.
Obama's a muslim.
(even though this has been disproven)Democrats want to turn this country over to Bin Laden.
(Give me a break
)Clinton never captured Bin Laden
(even though he couldn't at the time, but Bush hasn't really seemed hard pressed about al-Qaida :shrugI just call it as I see it, this place is quickly turning into the Republican version of the DU.
Pete
Repete
I've tried taking the high road, but you can't argue that a liberal is right about something and take the high road here.
I mean, you show people factual proof about something on here (in this case, bin Laden and Bill Clinton) and they tell you you're wrong because a book says otherwise.
Being President of the United States, easier said than done. If you're a liberal, all the righties are going to criticize you because you're undermining their religion. If you're a right wing president, all the liberals are going to insult you because you try to make things equal. :shrug:
It's easy for everyone else to sit in their chairs making $80,000 with their degrees in aerospace and second guess everything Clinton did as President.
I don't remember much from the Clinton years, but I do remember gas wasn't $4.00/gallon and I do remember Americans being more concerned about themselves than they were with other peoples' misery.
Bush, on the other hand, is so far to the right on the political circle that he shows up on the left side of the radar screen. All accounts from liberals to conservatives that have worked with the dude say he's a partisan hack who makes his decisions based purely on whatever will help polish this turd of a legacy he has. But, it's not fair to judge him off the word of others because I'm not inside and it's all hearsay. :shrug:
I just can't believe the stuff I see on here on a daily basis.
Obama's a muslim.
Democrats want to turn this country over to Bin Laden.
Clinton never captured Bin Laden
I just call it as I see it, this place is quickly turning into the Republican version of the DU.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
I remember plenty - heck I remember when gas was a quarter a gallon. And I don't consider myself old, yet.
My sentiment is that once you give up trying to take the high road, you relinquish any bragging rights to having tried in the past. Because even if you're beyond exasperated, you can always just walk away.
AndyMarquisLIVE
New Member
to you to.
Lenny
Lovin' being Texican
Ah, Grasshopper...
...you poor neglected product of the Charles County Public Schools. You make Frosty appear even more credible by failing to read ANY of the document you post as a slam-dunk proof of your point. Had you bothered you would seen that FactCheck.org talks about killing bin-Laden and equivocating over whether Klinton and Kompany received the offer. The "righties" tell you the Sudanese offered OBL for arrest and transfer to the U.S.A. You even have Klinton admitting to the substance of this offer *though he tried the "I didn't inhale" defense* when pinned down before the biased 9-11 commission.
Why don't you sign up for remedial reading this summer since the BOE obviously doesn't need you at work (you contiue to post and watch the news on gubmint time anyway)?
FactCheck.org: Did Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?
BAM, SUCKER!
But, typical for you to believe what Sean Hannity pulls out of his ass and feeds you for dinner.
...you poor neglected product of the Charles County Public Schools. You make Frosty appear even more credible by failing to read ANY of the document you post as a slam-dunk proof of your point. Had you bothered you would seen that FactCheck.org talks about killing bin-Laden and equivocating over whether Klinton and Kompany received the offer. The "righties" tell you the Sudanese offered OBL for arrest and transfer to the U.S.A. You even have Klinton admitting to the substance of this offer *though he tried the "I didn't inhale" defense* when pinned down before the biased 9-11 commission.
Why don't you sign up for remedial reading this summer since the BOE obviously doesn't need you at work (you contiue to post and watch the news on gubmint time anyway)?
Last edited: