• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

John boehner sex probe

Zaserac said:
The name calling certainly must have made you feel better.
Click to expand...

what name calling?

Meanwhile, I was not rebutting your comment. I was responding to the conversation.
Click to expand...

you were contradicting my statements with flat out falsehoods. I simply responded that you should check your facts because you were very far form being accurate. Instead of doing so, you continued to make false claims.

Unless, of course, you can find SOME way to make the claims found in posts 133, 135, and 137 factual.



Which I did not realize had already gotten pissy. My bad. I can see how pointing out the fact that it was all to do with Jones case and using the phrase "stems from" blew the pressure corker for you. Good day.
Click to expand...

I get irritated when I see people argue form a position of ignorance and then pretend that they weren't after getting called on it.
 
Tucker Case said:
If you think I'm boring, so be it. I'd rather be boring than intellectually dishonest and cowardly.
Click to expand...

Tell me...is it TRULY not possible for something to be OBVIOUS to me, but be perceived differently by someone such as yourself? Do you really want to pretend that your perspective is not slanted by bias? FM
 
VanceMack said:
Tell me...is it TRULY not possible for something to be OBVIOUS to me, but be perceived differently by someone such as yourself? Do you really want to pretend that your perspective is not slanted by bias? FM
Click to expand...

My perspective is certainly slanted by bias on a great many issues. But that certianly has no bearing on the FACT that you did not claim that it was obvious to you. You said "his actions OBVIOUSLY were intended to obstruct justice in the Paula Jones case why do you suppose no democrats voted to support the charges?"

That claim was intended to discount all possibility that others could perceive things differently. You were attempting to claim that the only reason democrats could have chosen to NOT vote to support those charges would be bias on thier part. You ignore the possibility that the only reason the charges seemed obviously correct yto you could be bias on your part.

When I challenged you to support that claim (very politely, I might add) you chose instead to tell me to "speak with an attorney" which implies that I am the person who is ignorant of the law in this regard (again, ignoring the possibility that you are ignorant of the law). I continued to challenge you to support your claim and you failed to do so in a way that would state how it is OBVIOUS that his intent was to obstruct justice.

Then, to make matters worse, after admitting that what you were calling obvious was actually pure conjecture on your part, you then decided to say "Obvious to anyone that doesnt have a vested interest in making sure that under no circumstances you can possibly find that repulsive scumbag guilty of anything."

Again, you are trying to discredit anyone who disagrees with your opinion.

It's entirely possible that you might think of something as obvious while others don't, but once you start trying to pretend your opinion is objectively "obvious" and those who disagree with it only do so because they are biased, you have stepped into the realm of partisan hackery.

And, going back to the conservative idea of personal responsibility, this whole "boring" discussion could have been avoided very easily had you actually answered my initial question instead of avoiding that by telling me to talk to a lawyer.

That type of **** is guaranteed to get me out in my full boring glory.
 
Tucker Case said:
My perspective is certainly slanted by bias on a great many issues. But that certianly has no bearing on the FACT that you did not claim that it was obvious to you. You said "his actions OBVIOUSLY were intended to obstruct justice in the Paula Jones case why do you suppose no democrats voted to support the charges?"

That claim was intended to discount all possibility that others could perceive things differently. You were attempting to claim that the only reason democrats could have chosen to NOT vote to support those charges would be bias on thier part. You ignore the possibility that the only reason the charges seemed obviously correct yto you could be bias on your part.

When I challenged you to support that claim (very politely, I might add) you chose instead to tell me to "speak with an attorney" which implies that I am the person who is ignorant of the law in this regard (again, ignoring the possibility that you are ignorant of the law). I continued to challenge you to support your claim and you failed to do so in a way that would state how it is OBVIOUS that his intent was to obstruct justice.

Then, to make matters worse, after admitting that what you were calling obvious was actually pure conjecture on your part, you then decided to say "Obvious to anyone that doesnt have a vested interest in making sure that under no circumstances you can possibly find that repulsive scumbag guilty of anything."

Again, you are trying to discredit anyone who disagrees with your opinion.

It's entirely possible that you might think of something as obvious while others don't, but once you start trying to pretend your opinion is objectively "obvious" and those who disagree with it only do so because they are biased, you have stepped into the realm of partisan hackery.

And, going back to the conservative idea of personal responsibility, this whole "boring" discussion could have been avoided very easily had you actually answered my initial question instead of avoiding that by telling me to talk to a lawyer.

That type of **** is guaranteed to get me out in my full boring glory.
Click to expand...

Obvious. To me. Based on my perspective. Obvious. To you. Based on your perspective.

oh...it brings out something in you OK...
 
VanceMack said:
Obvious. To me. Based on my perspective.
Click to expand...

If you had actually portrayed it as such from the start, instead of trying to imply that those who disagreed with your assesment were biased, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.
 
Tucker Case said:
If you had actually portrayed it as such from the start, instead of trying to imply that those who disagreed with your assesment were biased, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.
Click to expand...

OBVIOUSLY. He lied under oath in what was OBVIOUSLY a clear attempt to avoid being caught and made to look more guilty in the sexual harrassment trial he was involved in. He wasnt avoiding being caught by his wife...there is clear evidence she has not about his multiple affairs. There is clear eveidence that people knew about them prior to the 92 elections and no one cared. He lied for a reason. That reason is OBVIOUS. to ME. I have no doubt in your zeal to disprove his reasoning that you dont see it the same way I do.
 
VanceMack said:
OBVIOUSLY. He lied under oath in what was OBVIOUSLY a clear attempt to avoid being caught and made to look more guilty in the sexual harrassment trial he was involved in. He wasnt avoiding being caught by his wife...there is clear evidence she has not about his multiple affairs. There is clear eveidence that people knew about them prior to the 92 elections and no one cared. He lied for a reason. That reason is OBVIOUS. to ME. I have no doubt in your zeal to disprove his reasoning that you dont see it the same way I do.
Click to expand...

You are either confusing the word "obviously" with the term "in my opinion" or you are purposefully trying to paint your opinion as undeniable fact.
 
Tucker Case said:
You are either confusing the word "obviously" with the term "in my opinion" or you are purposefully trying to paint your opinion as undeniable fact.
Click to expand...

You OBVIOUSLY disagree with me...correct? You The term OBVIOUS is subjective. I THINK you understand that. Do you need to look up a definition for the word?
 
VanceMack said:
You OBVIOUSLY disagree with me...correct?
Click to expand...

That is an objective assesment of what has occured. There is no debate about the fac tthat we are in a disagreement. Claiming it is obvious we are disagreeing is not a subjective assesment at all because nobody would be able to argue otherwise.

The term OBVIOUS is subjective.
Click to expand...

It isn't subjective at all. Obvious is objective. Teh example you just provided has nothing to do with subjectivity. the disagreement is obvious because all who can observe us would agree that we are in a disagrement. ALL who observe.

Do you need to look up a definition for the word?
Click to expand...

How 'bout you look it up, because I don't think you know what it means if you think it is subjective.
 
VanceMack said:
Heck...Ive already said...I dont know which came first...the chicken or being married to Hillary, but I dont know that I blame him for catting around. And I've also said all things considered, I think he did a decent job as president.
Click to expand...

Far better than either of his successors thus far.
 
Tucker Case said:
VanceMack said:
You OBVIOUSLY disagree with me...correct?
Click to expand...
That is an objective assesment of what has occured. There is no debate about the fac tthat we are in a disagreement. Claiming it is obvious we are disagreeing is not a subjective assesment at all because nobody would be able to argue otherwise.

The term OBVIOUS is subjective.
Click to expand...

It isn't subjective at all. Obvious is objective. Teh example you just provided has nothing to do with subjectivity. the disagreement is obvious because all who can observe us would agree that we are in a disagrement. ALL who observe.

Do you need to look up a definition for the word?
Click to expand...

How 'bout you look it up, because I don't think you know what it means if you think it is subjective.
Click to expand...
[video]http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/5953/[/video]
 
Tucker Case said:
That is an objective assesment of what has occured. There is no debate about the fac tthat we are in a disagreement. Claiming it is obvious we are disagreeing is not a subjective assesment at all because nobody would be able to argue otherwise.



It isn't subjective at all. Obvious is objective. Teh example you just provided has nothing to do with subjectivity. the disagreement is obvious because all who can observe us would agree that we are in a disagrement. ALL who observe.



How 'bout you look it up, because I don't think you know what it means if you think it is subjective.
Click to expand...

Well lets see...is his motivation easily seen, easily discovered? You believe so. So do I. You stated he was a married man that didnt want to get caught (which is of course nonsense since he had already been caught numerous times). I see that it is obvious he was avoiding disclosure during a lawsuit which would damage his case. Again...OBVIOUS...to EACH of us, from our different perspectives. And taken to your logical conclusion, since your version of obvious differs from mine, that makes you a scumbag liar.
 
Whovian said:
[video]http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/5953/[/video]
Click to expand...

So...you are saying this is kinda silly and pointless?

Side note...WTF is up with this? Is this this the Jackass Generation?
 
VanceMack said:
You believe so.
Click to expand...

that's false. I don't think his motivation is obvious at all. I think it's entirely debatable. I think that in a criminal proceeding, that is all that is needed in order to rule "not guilty" because of the innocent until proven guilty issue.

You stated he was a married man that didnt want to get caught
Click to expand...

I presented this as a reasonable alternative explanation for him lying. You may feel that this is unreasonable, but feeling shave **** all to do with the justice system.

The explanation you feel is "obvious" is also a possibility, but it is by no means a given.

Again...OBVIOUS...to EACH of us, from our different perspectives
Click to expand...

I never once claimed that the alternative I described was "obviously" his motivation. I merely said ti was potentially his motivation.

I did say that regardless of his motivation, it is obvious that his lies did no prevent justice from occuring. (this is obvious becaus eany observer can EASILY SEE that Jones received exactly what she was looking for in the settlement)

And taken to your logical conclusion, since your version of obvious differs from mine, that makes you a scumbag liar.
Click to expand...

This is a strawman.
 
Vance, after reviewing our discussion, I think we are having more of a miscommunication more than anything.

First, I'd like to say that I'm sorry I called your previous comments lies.

I am now thinking that you and I have a very different way of looking at what "obvious" means. I no longer think that you were doing what I thought you were doing, and that would mean that you were not telling a lie before, but actually just using the statement in the way you understand it, which is drastically different from the way I understand it. I'm not sure which one of us is right about how the word should be used, but obviously :)2razz:) I'm going to think my use of the word is correct. That doesn't mean it actually is correct though.

So I apologize for the harsh exchange.
 
Tucker Case said:
that's false. I don't think his motivation is obvious at all. I think it's entirely debatable. I think that in a criminal proceeding, that is all that is needed in order to rule "not guilty" because of the innocent until proven guilty issue.



I presented this as a reasonable alternative explanation for him lying. You may feel that this is unreasonable, but feeling shave **** all to do with the justice system.

The explanation you feel is "obvious" is also a possibility, but it is by no means a given.



I never once claimed that the alternative I described was "obviously" his motivation. I merely said ti was potentially his motivation.

I did say that regardless of his motivation, it is obvious that his lies did no prevent justice from occuring. (this is obvious becaus eany observer can EASILY SEE that Jones received exactly what she was looking for in the settlement)



This is a strawman.
Click to expand...

And to ME it is VERY obvious. His wife already knows he is a cheater. Its that simple. It comes out during the trial that he is boffing an intern, the cigar thing...and he hasnt a third leg to stand on. He contested Jones claim because he thought he could win...otherwise it never goes to trial-the dude is anything BUT stupid. This comes out...not so much. His history of perversions comes out...he is screwed. So he lies.

We agree he committed perjury. We disagree on the obstruction of justice.

And again...it may shock you to know that I would have preferred that he plead the fifth and this never reached that point. I dont expect presidents to be perfect. Clinton was smart enough to know how to work with both sides. He was effective as a president. He didnt go full retard with an agenda over the economy.
 
VanceMack said:
And to ME it is VERY obvious. His wife already knows he is a cheater. Its that simple. It comes out during the trial that he is boffing an intern, the cigar thing...and he hasnt a third leg to stand on. He contested Jones claim because he thought he could win...otherwise it never goes to trial-the dude is anything BUT stupid. This comes out...not so much. His history of perversions comes out...he is screwed. So he lies.

We agree he committed perjury. We disagree on the obstruction of justice.

And again...it may shock you to know that I would have preferred that he plead the fifth and this never reached that point. I dont expect presidents to be perfect. Clinton was smart enough to know how to work with both sides. He was effective as a president. He didnt go full retard with an agenda over the economy.
Click to expand...

See my most recent post and I again offer my apologies.
 
Tucker Case said:
Vance, after reviewing our discussion, I think we are having more of a miscommunication more than anything.

First, I'd like to say that I'm sorry I called your previous comments lies.

I am now thinking that you and I have a very different way of looking at what "obvious" means. I no longer think that you were doing what I thought you were doing, and that would mean that you were not telling a lie before, but actually just using the statement in the way you understand it, which is drastically different from the way I understand it. I'm not sure which one of us is right about how the word should be used, but obviously :)2razz:) I'm going to think my use of the word is correct. That doesn't mean it actually is correct though.

So I apologize for the harsh exchange.
Click to expand...

I respect the heck out of you for saying that. OBVIOUSLY I am going to use that as an admission of weakness and dance on your throat. ;)

Seriously...I appreciate that. And I also apologize...mostly for comparing you to Haymarket. And I guess I have to thank Whovian for pointing out how silly the exchange was.
 
VanceMack said:
Nothing more nor less.

Now...since he absolutely committed perjury and his actions OBVIOUSLY were intended to obstruct justice in the Paula Jones case why do you suppose no democrats voted to support the charges? Keeping in mind of course that we arent talking the crime of getting a hummer from a willing participant (not a crime) but of wanking off and exposing himself to a campaign staffer and asking her (against her will) to blow him...
Click to expand...

You describe this as though you were there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom