Bill Clinton made $75 million from speeches

TheRedWorm said:
Evidence doesn't matter to you, does it, BAC?
Click to expand...
I don't think it is so much that evidence doesn't matter...I just think that there is such a partisan bent there that the threshold for evidence is incredibly low when it confirms his existing political biases.
 
fullflavormenthol said:
I don't think it is so much that evidence doesn't matter...I just think that there is such a partisan bent there that the threshold for evidence is incredibly low when it confirms his existing political biases.
Click to expand...

Which I'm sure applies to most of us, but B takes it to an extreme level.
 
Upchurch said:
Which I'm sure applies to most of us, but B takes it to an extreme level.
Click to expand...
Very true, and I kind of noticed that it can be applied to anyone when I posted it. What I meant was the extreme level, because the preponderance of the evidence goes against the conclusion that BaC is coming to. Like others have posted, at first the wall of text looks impressive. I backed off and studied it in the Vince Foster thread, and really there isn't much to it when you break down each piece. More importantly....you would have to accept a CT in which literally all of Washington was in on it.
 
fullflavormenthol said:
I don't think it is so much that evidence doesn't matter...I just think that there is such a partisan bent there that the threshold for evidence is incredibly low when it confirms his existing political biases.
Click to expand...

And, conversely, the threshold for opposing evidence is so high as to be unachievable.
 
Ausmerican said:
And, conversely, the threshold for opposing evidence is so high as to be unachievable.
Click to expand...
Yep. *I am not tying BaC to another CT with this* Another one along the same line is the birther CT's, because nothing convinces them either. 9/11 truthers are also bad about that, especially if they are politically motivated out of hatred for Bush. I am sure if I researched it enough I can find a partisan conspiracy theory attached to nearly every president, the challenge is the find contemporary sources for the conspiracy theory. Unfortunately for Clinton and every president afterwards the WWW was such a force that sites promoting those CTs are archived so the proponents of those CTs have something to link to. On the other hand it is good for people like me that enjoy debunking and looking into old CTs.

I am sure any future grandchildren will be able to make a great academic paper based on a study of political conspiracy theories if the Internet Archive is still around when (if) they exist. :D
 
I don't really want to reread 7 pages but has BaC ever actually explained what the problem was in the OP?
 
fullflavormenthol said:
because the preponderance of the evidence goes against the conclusion that BaC is coming to.
Click to expand...

LIAR. I've presented the preponderance of evidence on these subjects. Over and over and over, on thread after thread.

You and your side have used these tactics: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7372259&postcount=163 . Over and over and over, on thread after thread.

And it's all there in black and white, for anyone with an open enough mind to actually look. Not that there are many of those on this so-called *skeptics* forum. :D

For those who don't know, fullflavormenthol is another poster who claims to have me on ignore now. And yet, he is so obsessed with me that he can't stay off my threads, can he? Weird, isn't it? :D

Readers might also like to know the extent of FFM's dishonesty. For example, on one of the major Foster threads, FFM claimed that Foster (and I quote) "had a history of clinical depression, that is on record." And that is an outright lie, as I proved in that thread (see this: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4687393&postcount=132 ). As noted, even the doctor who treated Foster stated, on the record, that at best Foster had "mild" depression ... and there is a world of difference between the two diagnoses.

In fact, I hope readers will look at these posts I wrote to FFM on that thread, in response to the few claims of *fact* (:rolleyes:) he made:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4687435&postcount=133 ,
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5580934&postcount=285 ,
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5611286&postcount=336 ,
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5612082&postcount=344 ,
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5613146&postcount=356 ,
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5613210&postcount=360 ,
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5614730&postcount=373 ,
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6399436&postcount=458 ,
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6399802&postcount=466 ,
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6426269&postcount=536 ,
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6430204&postcount=542 ,
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6475978&postcount=691 ,
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6520175&postcount=699 .

They illustrate the degree of outright dishonesty that he's employed in his efforts to discredit the Foster allegations. Documented ... instance after instance of outright lies from him, for anyone to see.

And note his lack of response to all the facts and corrections of lies that I cited in those posts. Oh, he tried all the http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7372259&postcount=163 tactics, but he didn't even attempt to respond to the substance of those posts ... the facts that were cited ... the lies he was caught making. He just ignored them. He ran. Which is why he finally put me on ignore. Because that's all he could do when he couldn't respond to the facts. :D
 
elbe said:
I don't really want to reread 7 pages but has BaC ever actually explained what the problem was in the OP?
Click to expand...
Nope. Unless you want to believe any of the Arkansas Project conspiracy theories. For the most part the premise of the OP is simply an excuse to open up the floor for the usual CTs revolving around Bill Clinton.

In some cultures it is an offense to be compared to Bill Clinton :D hey ANT?

 
elbe said:
So what was the reason Clinton can't earn money from speeches?
Click to expand...
Because he is a democrat as anyone can see from the posting history of the originator of the OP. I will wager that once Obama is either defeated or cannot run again we will see a constant stream of birther threads.

In a word "partisanship" is the reason an ex-president cannot receive money from speeches.
 
fullflavormenthol said:
Because he is a democrat as anyone can see from the posting history of the originator of the OP. I will wager that once Obama is either defeated or cannot run again we will see a constant stream of birther threads.

In a word "partisanship" is the reason an ex-president cannot receive money from speeches.
Click to expand...

Well obviously. But I just thought that maybe BaC might have another reason he can't earn money.
 
BeAChooser said:
Don't be lazy.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't remember seeing it in the thread and, since it's actually the relevant topic, I thought you might want to be a bit more helpful. I remember seeing a lot of people ask what the problem was and I saw you perfectly happy with jumping right into more of that Brown CT BS.
 
If I could see one solid piece of evidence that would change the game all together. What I see is a whole of WND crap, and that gives me a whole different impression of the thread. Once I see something different I will feel the need to actually engage the OP. Until then my attitude is one of "good for ol' Bill making bank off his experience as President beside people being all stupid with the CT's and stuff".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom