Bravo

[Stinger]

Hear Hear!

 

[26 X World Champs]

LOL...Stace, that's the whole point. THE SOURCE. Someone didn't get it and probably never will. I could care less if Kennedy has 100 Love Children with 100 different women. It just isn't important to me. To discredit someones source rather than the content, while coming up with The National Enquirer as their source is hilarious.:doh

Exactly! You wrote it perfectly! Let's look at the evolution of this thread today?

Good old Navy Pride claims that Dems would never allow Pro-Life Dems to speak at their national conventions, citing Casey in 1992. This assertion is immediately and completely debunked, proven to be 100% inaccurate in it's premise since the real truth is that Casey wasn't asked to speak because he didn't support the Clinton Gore ticket. It's also proven that every convention since and including 1992 has had Dems who were Pro-Life have given speeches at the National Conventions. This is fact, indisputable, period?

What happens next? Instead of accepting the facts or even debating the facts we're told that the source is invalid...despite it all being verfiable and true.

Then, to no one's surprise, this same poster, instead of debating the point somehow posts a whacko story from, of all places, The National Enquirer about Ted Kennedy that posters here immediately debunked, again! What happens next? This is one amazing debating tactic...post something that is verifiably wrong, have it proven wrong and then divert to something else that's totally wrong and has nothing to do with the thread! Truth is stranger than fiction sometimes at Debate Politics.

Imagine how much this place would suck if everyone debated this way? It's such a hoot to see this typical evolution such as just described. It's so regular here, almost as regular as Old Faithful, which might be a good nickname for our non-debating colleague? Old Faithful...

 

[Stace]

I don't have to read your mind, all I have to do is read your posts....So angry, so defensive, so sad...........

You're funny, NP. Angry? Hardly, you're not worth getting worked up enough to be angry over. Defensive? If so, it's better than being passive and writing one liners that make the author look pretty lame....at leat I can back up my claims......sad? Hardly, right now is actually the happiest I've been in quite some time.

 

[Stace]

LOL...Stace, that's the whole point. THE SOURCE. Someone didn't get it and probably never will. I could care less if Kennedy has 100 Love Children with 100 different women. It just isn't important to me. To discredit someones source rather than the content, while coming up with The National Enquirer as their source is hilarious.:doh

Couldn't have said it better myself :mrgreen:

 

[SixStringHero]

OK, same thing re Bush, he's a drunk and shouldn't be allowed to have his finger on the button...

How ridiculous to post that Byrd's KKK membership disqualifies him for the rest of his life! He was a member in 1942-1943, that was 63 years ago. Perhaps you're unable to admit your mistakes and change your life, but that is what Byrd did....

Hey...come to think of it...didn't that drunk Bush become born again and denounce his younger transgressions? I guess using your logic you can never praise Bush, right?

I rarely praise Bush, but I guess you are assuming I'm partisan or conservative.

Secondly, I don't equate alcoholism and debauchery with Racism. Last time I had a few drinks I didn't go out and lynch someone. And the only thing affected by Bush's partying days was his liver.

I denounce anyone who I believe to be a racist or a demagogue; Santorum, Strom Thurmund, Pat Robertson, Falwell, Jesse Jackson and Nagan....just to name a few.