Of course. Your point being? Got anything better? 
Based on what? Bueller?
All the petulant footstamping you can muster won’t make that true.
Then start demonstrating it. Or just keep on whining, you do that *so * much better.
I like to go to the zoo to see the monkeys screeching and flinging poo, but reading your posts is so much easier.
ElvisL1ves, do you still really hold that the two statements Scylla disected are facts, not opinions? If so, can you counter Scylla’s explanation as to why his position is correct.
Or is this a whoosh or some game you two play that I am unaware of?
My position there was that Rove did not out Plame and was not the original source for Novak and that those who asserted that he was were mistaken. That premise seems to have held up.
I’m not going to reread the whole thread, but I recall sticking and arguing and discussing the issue of who knew when, especially concerning Plame’s neighbors for quite an extended period of time and can hardly be considered to have run away.
Two things about this, and please don’t take it wrong:
I’m not complaining and I don’t mind, but I was pretty much fighting singlehandedly against a host of others who held a contrary opinion. As such, I was unable to engage fully and completely with everybody to their full satisfaction. I had to choose what to reply to, and did not engage as deeply as I might in a more balanced discussion due to time constraints. So, if you felt your arguments were ignored or not fully engaged I am sorry.
In debating you here, I notice that rather than really being focussed on the topic at hand, you’re more interested in discussing and/or continuing some debate from like six months ago, something of a sidetrack/hijack. You make specific complaints that you wish addressed but you haven’t quoted or cited or linked and leave it to me to find the thread, look through it and try to figure out what the hell it is you’re talking about.
This is a lot of work, and I don’t really see that I owe it to you, aside from a general willingness to engage in discussion. I feel that if it’s important to you and you want to discuss it, you should make it pretty easy for me and link and quote so I know exactly and don’t have to guess.
Similarly, while I’m sure the issue is important to you, whether or not a specific source was honest and complete concerning a specific story was a side issue to the main debate topic hand. Germaine? yes, but a side issue nonetheless. If you reperuse the thread you’ll see that I engaged the issue quite a bit. I know that you feel that it was important to you and I neglected it and you feel unsatisfied, but, quite frankly, I had other fish to fry and unwillingness to flog dead horses to the extent that you deem appropriate is not really something that I feel compelled to do.
Doubtless you feel that this is unsatisfactory, and that I was weaseling and running away. I’m sorry you feel that way.
In that same vein, I feel that I’ve also been more than fair to you here and engaged you on this hijack beyond the extent that can reasonably be expected. Mostly, I’ve done that so that you won’t accuse me of running away. The fact is, I think this current hijack where we rehash a six month old thread is tedious, boring and a waste of time. If I don’t wish to flog dead horses with you endlessly, don’t necessarily think of it as cowardice or abandoning a bankrupt position. I just might think it’s tedious and boring.
Can we move on now?
Take any fact, torture it long enough, and it will scream out a confession. “Yes, yes, I’m really just an opinion! Now, please, let me die!”
Really? Perhaps you could waterboard “2+2=4” into an opinion for us?
Maybe you could put “Harrisburg is the Capitol of Pennsylvania” under a shroud and eloctroshock it’s testicles until it confesses it’s an opinion.
Actually **Scylla ** is correct, Clinton was impeached for perjuring himself, of course it was about a blow job that he perjured himself.
He is also correct that no matter how much most people now think Bush “Sux”, this is still just a popular opinion and not fact. You could say, “it is a fact that most people now think Bush Sucks”.
While both your statements are inherently correct, they are not technically facts.
Jim {BTW: I fixed up your coding a bit}
No idea. But I briefly read there after the Dennis Prager Koran lunacy, and the vitriol was sure flecked with something. I only hope it was foam.
If the opposing opinion cannot be reasonably maintained, then yes, for all effects it’s a fact.
It is very easy to dismiss any view you dlon’t like by saying it’s just an opinion, everybody has 'em, they’re all just as good as each other - but it’s fallacious.
But he proved his points, didn’t he? Both the reason for the impeachment and Bush’s sucking. When you cited your “proof” concerning Bush, he pointed out that you were citing an opinion pole.
Am I missing part of your rationale?
What you might or might not consider “reasonable” is also your opinion.
I’d like to be clear. Has your stance changed? Previously, you’ve stated that “Bush sux” is a fact.
Now you seem to be saying that it’s a very good opinion “for all effects a fact.”
Would it be fair to say that you concede that “Bush sux” is not an actual fact per se, but just consider it to be an exceedingly good opinion?
Elvis:
I don’t wish to neglect the other “fact.”
These are the articles of impeachment for Bill Clinton:
If you still claim that it is a fact that Clinton was impeached for a “blowjob.” If you still maintain that’s a fact, can you cite the part that accuses Clinton of a blowjob and uses that as grounds for impeachment?
Do you still maintain that Shodan is wrong, and that his examples are “facts?”
If not, are you willing to concede both points?
I have changed my mind about something, yes. Sometimes reading your posts is even *more * fun than watching the monkeys fling poo.
Especially when it’s in a thread about conservatives not getting enough respect. 
If it is not a fact that Bush sucks, how does he ever drink through a straw?
Alternatively, how does he make all that cash at highway rest stops?
In post 241 you state (my bolding:)
"this board has antigens for those who refuse to acknowledge facts."
Yet you still maintain that “Bush Sux” and “Clinton was impeached for a blowjob.” are facts, and berate Shodan for suggesting they are not facts.
You did say it quite well back in that post and I think it bears repeating:
Hardly, the apology to Plame from Armitage showed how flawed your premise was (After he was pointed as a source, he revealed that Fitzgerald knew already he was an original source and that he resigned in shame for what he did). And you are here avoiding the big egg I was pointing that was in your face by still insisting there was evidence for neighbors knowing Valerie was cover, That was the point it has not hold up.
Fair enough.
Only thing to mention here is that the investigation still continues, so no, it is not a dead horse. I also did mention that I did not agree with other left members that focused on Rove when it is Cheney who will have to answer some questions.
Moving along, all that was just only to show that some extreme right wing members facts are assumed to be just opinions in the left, defending a flawed point for several pages does not improve it or turns it into a fact, and I do agree it happens also to the left, but in this era of the Internet I have seen that many times the facts are not on the side of the current administration that had to cherry pick them.
I agree with What Exit?, it is not a fact to say “Bush sux”, but: “it is a fact that most people now think Bush Sucks”.
Most people think Bush sucks. Clinton was impeached for perjury. The advantage of having no allegience to either the left or the right is that I don’t have to deny the truth of either of those factual statements.
So if I make a comment that sounds like something a right-wing nutjob says then it is permissible to say that I belong with them? Let’s follow your thinking then:
It is permissible to paint groups of individuals with broad strokes of stereotypes, insults and irrational caricatures. You are allowed to dismiss those that think differently from you as crazy, uncaring, immature. If a person makes a statement that is counter to your way of thinking and you consider it to be similar to the more extreme factions of a group of people then you can lump the individual in with the group, even if they do not belong to it.
Hey! You sound like a conservative! Welcome to the fold! Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh will stop by later to give you your membership ring and teach you the secret handshake.
Are we assuming that the comment isn’t meant ironically? Because if so, yes, at least on that particular subject, and I’m truly baffled as to what exactly is difficult to understand about that.
If Clinton had truthfully testified, “Yeah, I got a sloppy blowjob from a sloppy intern…what of it?”, who here thinks he STILL would have been impeached?
My answer: Not me.
:shrugs:
A further example of how tenuous your grasp of “facts” is is hardly necessary, but…
Shodan’s Rule - It is easy to debate liberals. No matter what you say about them, one usually shows up to prove it’s true.
Regards,
Shodan