The Clinton Boogie Man Lives On

**DrDetroit** · March 27th, 2002, 12:34 AM

Smackie: Republicans are conservative.

I am with you on this, no need to qualify it as by nature, Republicans are conservatives. However, Fester's article implies that all Republicans used this particular lie to smear Clinton, which, obviously, is untrue.

Ooops, I see the problem here, you believe that, by definition, Republicans are liars. forums

I have no problem characterizing all Republicans as conservative as for the most part they are, however, once you move into characterizing Republicans as liars, that's a different issue altogether.

So, are you gonna answer my question or not? How was I supposed to read Fester's article then? All Republicans or just some Republicans? It was not qualified....

You may continue with your second grade lesson.....carry on.

**Smackie Chan** · March 27th, 2002, 01:01 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by DrDetroit:

So, are you gonna answer my question or not? How was I supposed to read Fester's article then? All Republicans or just some Republicans? It was not qualified....

You may continue with your second grade lesson.....carry on.</font></font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't flatter yourself...second grade is but a distant speck on the horizon before you.

Damn, I thought I answered your question as clearly as I could, but again it appears I overestimate your capabilities. Once again, in most cases where an unmodified plural noun does not specify quantity or individual members of the plural noun mentioned (e.g., Republicans), an implied adjective or modifying phrase such as "some," "a few," "many," "most," "a whole shitload," et al, is preferable to an extreme modifier such as "all," which because it is so extreme, we can safely assume the author would have included in order to drive his point home and not allow the reader to make the logical assumption that he does not mean all.

On your point about Republicans being conservative, not all are. Some are moderate, while a few might even be described as progressive, so to assume that all Republicans are conservative would be as incorrect as to assume that all birds can fly.

An example of how an argument using your "reasoning" would occur might look like this:

Smackie: Fish swim in the ocean.

DrDork: Smackie, you dipshit! Is a trout a fish? Does a trout swim in the ocean? NO? HA!! You're such an iodot, Smokie...get outta your haze and look around at reality, dude.

Smackie: Um, doc...did I say all fish?

DrDubya'sageniuscomparedtome: No, but what else could you have meant? You didn't say which fish, so obviously you meant all fish, which of course just goes to further prove what a lying Communist bastard you are! SCOREBOARD!!

...or something like that.

<font color="#330033" size="1">[ March 26, 2002 09:03 PM: Message edited by: Smackie Chan ]</font>

**Big Tech** · March 27th, 2002, 01:31 AM

Im to drunk and high to read all that ^^^^
||||

**DrDetroit** · March 27th, 2002, 02:55 AM

Smakcie, like I said before, I see your point, however, all of your examples are not comparable to what Fester posted. Your fish example would be similar to talking about people, animals, etc., entire populations. Republicans is but one segment of a broader population. Hence, using "Republicans" without qualifying all, some, white, etc., completely leaves it open.

Fester's article doesn't qualify which Republicans it is referring to, hence, it leaves nothing other than all, the absence of the qualifier infers it.

Props for the second grade smack and the english lesson, too bad it was for naught....

**Terry in Crapchester** · March 27th, 2002, 09:54 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by mvscal:
I guess that's why the ABA rated Pickering as 'well qualified'.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wasn't it W who said he wasn't going to use the ABA ratings in selecting judicial nominees?

More to the point, from http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20020322.html

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">[S]ome Senators considered Pickering's record on the bench to be mediocre at best.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If your saying anything other than this was a straight up partisan hatchet job, you're full of shit.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spin it anyway you want, but the bottom line is that the Senate played by the rules on the Pickering nomination, or at least as close to the rules as the GOP-controlled Senate did with respect to Clinton's nominations.

**Uncle Fester** · March 27th, 2002, 05:15 PM

Deetroit:

It's funny how you try and steer arguments to your advantage with your straw men, diversions, spin, and irrelevent questions. Then you follow up with insults and rants about how everyone is "ducking your question."

It's always the same life and death game with you. I'm amazed at how patient Index was in bothering to even respond to you.

And today (I'm in a good mood), your posts just seem fucking hilarious to me. Props! forums

**DrDetroit** · March 27th, 2002, 06:23 PM

Fester, anytime you wanto to call me to the mat on ay of those things you posted, feel free to do so. I?ll sack up and do my best to post posts that make sense and are reasonable.

What I find most amusing is that when I disagree with one you guys and offer my alternative perspective, it?s called, ?spin.?

When I ask a question directly addressing a point made by a poster that the poster cannot respond to, it?s called ?irrelevant? and/or ?a diversion.?

Those two things crack me up the most on these boards.

**warrenton** · March 28th, 2002, 04:25 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Terry in Crapchester:
Rack Smackie and Fester, even though the board's right wing is attempting a pile-on (go figure). And I just thought I'd address this particular gem from Warren:

The earlier appointment they had approved the same man (Charles Pickering) for was twelve years ago (or thereabouts). Many on the judiciary committee believed that Pickering had piled up a singularly unimpressive record (reminds me of Clarence Thomas) over the course of those twelve years. Actually, W nominated Pickering as a favor to Trent Lott, a personal friend of Pickering's, and rumor was that even the W administration wasn't real thrilled about the nomination.

Btw, if memory serves, Pickering was nominated for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. How many of Clinton's nominees for that Court were rejected by the GOP-controlled Senate without even a vote?</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

touche'.

**warrenton** · March 28th, 2002, 04:29 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by vitocorleone:
Aaaaah yes, Dr.WarrenPeehole. I see the right wing circle jerk is in full affect this morning The log cabin republicans are representing this morning.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aaaaaah yes, I see that VitalColonostomy once again has nothing to bring to the table other than "Laker rule dude!"

The only Log Cabin around here I know of is your ass crack where you routinely treat plunger and penis to a warm safe environment.

Go ask your Daddy for a take and then get back to us.