Bankrupt Republicans try to Ressurrect Whitewater

[jj]

Today, a fellow from Southern California filed suit to force release of pictures of Vince Foster.

You can read the details in USA Today, if you want.

It's pretty clear that it's an attempt to make this campaign about Whitewater and Monica's dress, and hide the facts about how this administration's lies are enormously worse, and much more damaging.

Is it a party thing? I doubt it.

[arcticpenguin]

http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4245349.html

[corplinx]

Originally posted by jj

It's pretty clear that it's an attempt to make this campaign about Whitewater and Monica's dress,


What does Monica's dress have to do Vince Foster's death?

Nothing.

What does Allen Favish filing under the freedom of information act to have photos taken of the body at the supposed place of death have to with with the GOP at large?

Nothing.

The sad thing is, you seem to be just as big of a conspiracy woo-woo as the "Clinton killed Foster" types.

[jj]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4245349.html

Thank you, sir.

I couldn't bring myself to advertise USA Toady.

[jj]

Originally posted by corplinx



What does Monica's dress have to do Vince Foster's death?

Nothing.


What does bringing up the same old memories have to do with the upcoming presidental campaign?

Everything.


What does Allen Favish filing under the freedom of information act to have photos taken of the body at the supposed place of death have to with with the GOP at large?

Nothing.


I said "I doubt it", now, didn't I? Why are you being unethical? What's your reason for misrepresenting my position?

The sad thing is, you seem to be just as big of a conspiracy woo-woo as the "Clinton killed Foster" types.
Really?

So, you then assert that there is any sensible motivation here, other than to remind us all of the Starr Chamber?

[corplinx]

You realize he originally filed for the photos back in 1998? This has been an ongoing fight and is nothing new.

[jj]

Originally posted by corplinx
You realize he originally filed for the photos back in 1998? This has been an ongoing fight and is nothing new.

Except that it's coming up again, when?

[jayrev]

I didn't realize Clinton was running for president again.

[corplinx]

Favish's web site (http://www.allanfavish.com/foster.htm) for reference.

Notice he links whatreallyhappened.com which isn't exactly an occam's razor friendly site.

Mind you, I haven't seen enough evidence myself to determine if Vince Foster has killed himself but I can say I have seen no compelling evidence that foul play was involved.

The probem with the Foster case is most of the sites that layout the problems with the suicide explanation seem to have already drawn the foul play conclusion and have either heavy anti-government or anti-Clinton biases.

[corplinx]

JJ, fly your black helicoptor over to Favish's site and he has a timeline of his fight to get the photos.

Just because USA Today ran an article on it doesn't mean this is some new effort.

[jj]

Originally posted by jayrev
I didn't realize Clinton was running for president again.

Neither did I. In fact, I thought he wasn't elligible.

On the other hand, Jayrev, you have to admit that they used Mr. Bill's shadow relentlessly in the last election, when he wasn't running.

So, he's not running. Why is this at all germane?

[jj]

Originally posted by corplinx
JJ, fly your black helicoptor over to Favish's site and he has a timeline of his fight to get the photos.

Just because USA Today ran an article on it doesn't mean this is some new effort.

Typical of you, corps, when somebody on the non-reactionary side says something, you attack them for "just playing partisan".

With your reaction here, your completely unbalanced view of the world has emerged for all to see.

If this came out of the "liberal" side (by which I mean anybody to the left of Barry Goldwater), you'd be all over it dripping venom, and we both know that's the truth.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by jj


Neither did I. In fact, I thought he wasn't elligible.

On the other hand, Jayrev, you have to admit that they used Mr. Bill's shadow relentlessly in the last election, when he wasn't running.

So, he's not running. Why is this at all germane?

Because Hilary MIGHT decide to run someday, and everyone knows that she's the one to blame for Vince Foster's death.

[Tony]

Originally posted by jj


Typical of you, corps, when somebody on the non-reactionary side says something, you attack them for "just playing partisan".

With your reaction here, your completely unbalanced view of the world has emerged for all to see.

If this came out of the "liberal" side (by which I mean anybody to the left of Barry Goldwater), you'd be all over it dripping venom, and we both know that's the truth.

I didnt realize grandpa Simpson was a member of this forum.

[jj]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Because Hilary MIGHT decide to run someday, and everyone knows that she's the one to blame for Vince Foster's death.

I see, and we know any of this why?

In either case, the fact that they used Mr. Bill and the Starr Chamber against Gore would suggest that what HC does is moot to this discussion, unless she's running now, and I don't think she wants 4 more years of the shrub, so she's smart enough not to run, I hope.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by jj


Typical of you, corps, when somebody on the non-reactionary side says something, you attack them for "just playing partisan".


Well..... YOU ARE.

Your attacking these "bankrupt republicans" for the actions of a few people outside the mainstream of all politics who think republicans are in on the conspiracy since the republicans (including Ken Star) decided the death was a suicide.

You are becoming a certifiable loony.

Just show me an orchestrated effort of any kind as you accuse there of being and I'll humbly apologize

[jj]

Originally posted by corplinx


Well..... YOU ARE.

In this case, indeed I am.

And you seem to really, seriously, intensely dislike it.

Now, perhaps you understand why so many of us have found you so incredibly offensive when you've launched one of your attacks on anyone more liberal than Barry Goldwater, yes?

Or do you?

Your attacking these "bankrupt republicans" for the actions of a few people outside the mainstream of all politics who think republicans are in on the conspiracy since the republicans (including Ken Star) decided the death was a suicide.

I am doing JUST EXACTLY what you and some others of the lunatic right do. How come you don't like it when somebody does it to one of yours?

Face it, this guy is just like Moore, only crunchy. How many times have you (and others) shoved Moore into everyone's face like he's the representitive of the opposition?

Don't like it, THEN DON'T DO IT.

You are becoming a certifiable loony.

I'm imitating your own debating style. If you think it looks loony, take it to heart, corps.

Just show me an orchestrated effort of any kind as you accuse there of being and I'll humbly apologize
Heh. If I had evidence, you'd react just the same, I think.

[BTox]

Originally posted by jj
It's pretty clear that it's an attempt to make this campaign about Whitewater and Monica's dress, and hide the facts about how this administration's lies are enormously worse, and much more damaging.

Is it a party thing? I doubt it.

Convincing evidence. And makes perfect sense, after all, this is to counter the dems strategy of running against the alleged conspiracies of the Reagan admin... :rolleyes:

[jj]

Originally posted by BTox


Convincing evidence. And makes perfect sense, after all, this is to counter the dems strategy of running against the alleged conspiracies of the Reagan admin... :rolleyes:

err, PRECISELY!

Which, if you read through, is the point. My flight of fancy is no more or no less absurd than the utter drivel that the right wing brings here to use nearly every day.

But we have to take THEM seriously. Why? Because the right wing has succeeded in their hate campaign against moderates.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by jj


err, PRECISELY!

Which, if you read through, is the point. My flight of fancy is no more or no less absurd than the utter drivel that the right wing brings here to use nearly every day.

But we have to take THEM seriously. Why? Because the right wing has succeeded in their hate campaign against moderates.


So two wrongs make a right?

[jj]

Originally posted by Grammatron



So two wrongs make a right?

Perhaps you should go read the rest of the thread instead of building a straw man to insult me with.

What's wrong, needed to take a cheap-shot?

Why?

[peptoabysmal]

Why thank you JJ, for yet another reason to vote for Bush. I'd probably never have even seen this bit of damning evidence about the Clinton administration if you hadn't brought it up. :D

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by jj


Perhaps you should go read the rest of the thread instead of building a straw man to insult me with.

What's wrong, needed to take a cheap-shot?

Why?

It was not meant as an insult. You started the thread with a rather wild premise, then you justified by "well the 'right' does the same thing so we must do it too." That's absurd thing to post on a skeptics forum. When you do things like that, prepare for some rather none-flattering responses.

[jj]

Originally posted by Grammatron


It was not meant as an insult. You started the thread with a rather wild premise, then you justified by "well the 'right' does the same thing so we must do it too." That's absurd thing to post on a skeptics forum. When you do things like that, prepare for some rather none-flattering responses.

No,that's not what I did.

Read more carefully.

[Ignatius]

Good article on Slate about this. Although the guy is a crackpot the case brought up some interesting points about the extent of the FOIA: The Wing Nut's Revenge (http://slate.msn.com/id/2091931/)

[Jocko]

Originally posted by jj


Except that it's coming up again, when?

I believe you've crossed your wires. I think you mean to be addressing the strategic timing of the Senate Democrat's Iraq intelligence investigation.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Grammatron



So two wrongs make a right?

Of course. Why do you think Democrats push so hard for affirmative action?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by jj


No,that's not what I did.

Read more carefully.

I read; please explain to me what you did as I do not see it.

[BTox]

Originally posted by jj
But we have to take THEM seriously. Why? Because the right wing has succeeded in their hate campaign against moderates.

Where do you get this from? I'd say the right wing hates the left wing, and vice-versa. Surely you're not naive enough to believe only Republicans utilize politics of personal destruction. The Dems practically invented it...

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I read; please explain to me what you did as I do not see it.

He's gotten lost in his own poorly written post and is hoping the thread dissappears. Let's just let this one rest.

[jj]

Originally posted by corplinx


He's gotten lost in his own poorly written post and is hoping the thread dissappears. Let's just let this one rest.

Still trying to hide the fact it outed your hideous prejudice and expoused your hypocracy?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by jj


Still trying to hide the fact it outed your hideous prejudice and expoused your hypocracy?

Enough with the insults back and forth.

JJ, you posted this in your original post to start off this thread:

"It's pretty clear that it's an attempt to make this campaign about Whitewater and Monica's dress, and hide the facts about how this administration's lies are enormously worse, and much more damaging."

Care to back ANY of that up? And I DO NOT mean with the fallacies you've used thus far (two wrongs make a right; cum hoc ergo propter hoc; poisoning the well)...

[jj]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Enough with the insults back and forth.

JJ, you posted this in your original post to start off this thread:

"It's pretty clear that it's an attempt to make this campaign about Whitewater and Monica's dress, and hide the facts about how this administration's lies are enormously worse, and much more damaging."

Care to back ANY of that up? And I DO NOT mean with the fallacies you've used thus far (two wrongs make a right; cum hoc ergo propter hoc; poisoning the well)...

I haven't tried to back it up. I'm simply mimicing Corps' and some of the other rightwing lunatics' argument tactics.

Just like it is when they do it, the tactics have nothing to do with logic or reason.

But I'd think if you'd bother to read the thread, you'd have known that by now.

But, can you explain to me how it is that I'm not a good american when they do it, but somehow they are good americans when they whine when I copy their tactics cold-on?

[jj]

Originally posted by Kodiak

And I DO NOT mean with the fallacies you've used thus far (two wrongs make a right;...

Please get it straight. That has two parts, pointing out the other guy did it, and saying that makes it ok.

I've only done the first half, and that's quite deliberate.

If these guys don't like what they see here, then they can stop using the same forms of argument every time they want to try to enforce their totalitarian "conservative" agenda.

It's amazing, Kodiak, did you take them to task (that's actually a genuine question) or are you a hypocrite who only attacks one side?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by jj
I haven't tried to back it up. I'm simply mimicing Corps' and some of the other rightwing lunatics' argument tactics.

Again, two wrongs don't make a right. You're no better than those you are accusing.

Rise above these fallacies. Be clear by showing specific examples and then calling those specific posters to task.

A question though - why didn't you address their "lunacy" when they originally posted it and then move on?

Originally posted by jj
Just like it is when they do it, the tactics have nothing to do with logic or reason.

Then why do you persist with this childishness?

Originally posted by jj
But I'd think if you'd bother to read the thread, you'd have known that by now.

Then why post this admitted B.S.??

Originally posted by jj
But, can you explain to me how it is that I'm not a good american when they do it, but somehow they are good americans when they whine when I copy their tactics cold-on?

You offered no comparison of tactics, only conspiracies, accusations and fallacies...

"Good Americans...bad Americans"?!? I have no idea what you're talking about here...

[jj]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I read; please explain to me what you did as I do not see it.

I suggest that you read my long reply to corplix.

I think it makes it clear that nowhere do I argue that the form of argument is RIGHT, merely that they also do it.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by jj


Please get it straight. That has two parts, pointing out the other guy did it, and saying that makes it ok.

I've only done the first half, and that's quite deliberate.

If these guys don't like what they see here, then they can stop using the same forms of argument every time they want to try to enforce their totalitarian "conservative" agenda.

It's amazing, Kodiak, did you take them to task (that's actually a genuine question) or are you a hypocrite who only attacks one side?

So this entire thread of juvenile B.S. is some lame cry for "fairness"??

Next time, try laying out your case by siting examples and then elaborate to back up your arguements and contentions instead of spewing blatant fallacies in between propagandist one-liners.

I loathe fallacies, who(m)ever posts them. I won't defend myself or my behavior on this forum. My posts speak for themselves, so if you can prove your allegations, present them for all to see.

I'm confident that regular posters on all sides of the political and ideological spectrum will comment favorably about my fairness, reasonableness, and consistency if you ask them...

[jj]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Again, two wrongs don't make a right. You're no better than those you are accusing.


I haven't asserted that. I've simply mimiced their argument style. Now show me where I said it was RIGHT.

Hint: I didn't.


Rise above these fallacies.



Why? We see them all the time in the ravings from the right. How come you're not attacking them like this?



Be clear by showing specific examples and then calling those specific posters to task.


I have already done that, to the sound of "I guess you don't have anything TO SAY", and lots of "you aren't a real american" kind of sneering.

Why don't you know this, since you're taking on the job of being the inquisition. Why haven't you done the whole job?



A question though - why didn't you address their "lunacy" when they originally posted it and then move on?


I have. Do your own homework.


Then why do you persist with this childishness?


So when I do this, it's "childish".

Where are you to say that to corps, or billiefan, etc, when they do this kind of thing?

If you had the least bit of "evenhandedness" here, you'd already know the answers, you've just chosen to refuse to accept that I've made a political parody, and you're attacking me with very serious accusations like "childish" when you've given the other side a free ride, as far as I've seen, and I've been watching this board for quite a while now.

I think there's a word for that, but you won't like the word.



Then why post this admitted B.S.??


Because I just outed you as a conservative apologist.

OOPS!


You offered no comparison of tactics, only conspiracies, accusations and fallacies...


WELL DUH, if I'm going to parody the other side's tactics, I'm going to do what they do.


"Good Americans...bad Americans"?!? I have no idea what you're talking about here...
If you don't, then you haven't done your homework in this part of this board.

[jj]

Originally posted by Kodiak


So this entire thread of juvenile B.S. is some lame cry for "fairness"??


So, kodiak, why is it a "lame cry" only when somebody who's not on the right does it?


Next time, try laying out your case by siting examples and then elaborate to back up your arguements and contentions instead of spewing blatant fallacies in between propagandist one-liners.


Oh, I see, you get to tell me "no parodies for jj".

Why?

If you bothered to do any homework you'd know I've done that in various threads, to no avail.


I loathe fallacies, who(m)ever posts them.

Good, go hang out in some of the right-wing threads for a while. We'll see how your loathing makes out.

[Kodiak]

I'm sorry I wasted my time on you jj by trying to deal with you honestly and maturely, but alas, you've obviously degenerated into the "perpetual victimhood"/"if they can do it, I can do it" style of trolldom.


:v:

:v:

:v:

[jj]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I'm sorry I wasted my time on you jj, but alas, you've obviously degenerated into the "perpetual victimhood/if they can do it, I can do it" style of trolldom.

You are still maintaining the false, easily disproven claim that I am somehow claiming that the argument style is in any fashion valid. Why? I've specifically said it wasn't.

If you read the thread, you know that. So, which is it, you didn't do your homework, or you chose to be malicious and keep insisting that I've claimed something I haven't?

Why is your response so obviously, clearly slanted? You claim you hate fallacies. Where are you when the right wingers are waving theirs about the entire landscape, sir? I haven't seen much (and can't recall any) of your hatred of fallacies showing up there. How come?

Yes, the original article was a parody, an intentional, concious parody. I've said that. What part of that isn't clear?

MAKING THIS KIND OF PARODY OF SOMETHING IS ANYTHING BUT ARGUING FOR THE GOODNESS OF THAT SOMETHING, NOW, IS IT NOT?

Now, there are affectionate parodies, but rather obviously this isn't one, eh?