why don't liberal democrats understand opinion vs fact?

Question

example: Bill Clinton as a FACT looked into the news cameras and stright out LIED, he was found guilty of lying by the evidence, and his own admitance. The left rants on about President Bush lying. now I keep up with event and at no time did I here any guilty verdict or admission of any alleged lie of any sort. I am being nice, to be blunt, the left has OPINIONS that Bush lied and can not back their arugement. So as usual their creditability is ZERO.

wow okay I will type slow this time.... Clinton was found guilty of lying but was not prosecuted okay??? thank you.

BTW libs once again you proved you can not answer a direct question, not to mention give some realitive facts. As usual you spun it around diverting the question with ill-conceived babble.

trying to give you a platform to state your case....

Answer 1

Correction liberals understand opinion and fact.
They only want you to think that opinion that agrees with them is fact or facts that go their way is fact.

However, if fact or opinion disagree with them than it must be lies.

The liberal mindset is bash Bush no matter what the facts are no matter what the opinion maybe.

The liberal hate for Bush has no depth.

When liberals are being quoted by those who want us dead. I think it is time for liberals to take a deep breath and ask themselves what is more important bashing Bush or falling to Muslim terrorists.

Please remember what these democrats said about WMDs.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Right!!!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

my bad I reminded liberals of the what they said in the past. How quick they want us to forget.

Answer 2

I never claim a party; I much prefer to look at the person than the party affiliation. I guess if I had to I'd be a "democrat." I would never abort a life inside me. But I also feel that it is not up to anybody to make that decision for me. That is between the two people involved and not anybody else. So, personally I am pro-life but for the country it NEEDS to be pro-choice. The illegal immigrant issue touches close to home. I don't know if it is a party thing or not. Currently, the laws and paperwork needed to become legal change so often that by the time you fill one form out it is obsolete. I am against illegal immigration but am hoping that something is changed so that those who want to be here and are working for it can stay. Religion and politics is something to keep separate. :-) In today's world, one can be both Catholic and pro-choice. My religion has nothing to do with my opposition on the war. In fact, more wars in history were fought because of religion than any other reason. (Interesting tidbit of useless information.) Your boyfriend not listening to you when discussing politics (or any other topic for that matter) has nothing to do with his party affiliation. Maybe he's just stubborn and believes he's right, period. Or maybe politics is a touchy subject for him. It is for many people! My suggestion would be to not proclaim yourself as one party or another. Listen to the candidates, read their backgrounds, here both what they're saying and what they're NOT saying. Make an educated decision based on your "research" rather than what party you've always voted for. (And listen to the debates before you make your FINAL decision. That's usually and interesting time that brings up a few unexpected ideals!)

Answer 3

The marxist masses need something to complain about to keep their moral going. They are in a perpetual infantile stage of planning an uphill charge at the whitehouse. This is due to the fact that they just cant seem to keep their ranks filled with childless gay families and abortion. The rants and raves of the liberal marxist masses will grow exponentially while the ranks of conservative Republicans keep growing and growing in order to offset the difference in manpower. The current plan of the marxist rebels is to use illogic and unsubstantiated opinions to win sympathy for being stupid.

Answer 4

Your facts concerning Bill Clinton are wrong. I wouldn’t criticize others about facts if I were you. Clinton was found “Not Guilty” by the Senate. Besides that, most Americans didn’t care about what he supposedly lied about. Everything Bush has said about the Iraq War has been a lie. The PNAC neocons planned the invasion of Iraq years before 2003. Bush persuaded the country to go to war and pushed and pushed on the basis of “facts” that he had good reason to believe were not true. He needs to be investigated and held accountable because these lies were very important.

Answer 5

When someone has nothing constructive to do, they talk about other people in hopes it distracts from their inability to do anything.

Congress talks alot, but in the grand scheme of things they don't do anything unless it is financially beneficial to them.

For example if a bill comes up, they will all say, well if you let me attach this pet project to it, I will vote for it. It is very seldom that a bill gets through that doesn't have more pork attached to it than the original cost of the bill.

Answer 6

Why would the liberals let facts get in the way of their positions. If you look at ANY of their positions on major issues they all are steeped deep in rhetoric and opinion and a very devoid of truth.
Take the recent abortion decision by the supreme court. The only thing the court decided as that Federal Legislators have the constitutional authority to make laws.
If you listen to the liberals they just overturned Roe v Wade.
Global Warming is another example of opinion and Rhetoric with no science to back it up. Ask a typical liberal and they just repeat the rhetoric without any empirical knowledge.

Answer 7

Let's look at this in another way. Clinton obviously knew that he was lying, while Bush was given evidence that supported what he said. Thankfully it turned out false, and we still got to go into a country and spread democracy. So while my heart goes out to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice and to their families, I'm glad that some Amercans have the courage to do what's right even if it means sacrificing their own accountability. God Bless America!

Answer 8

You're overlooking one big factor.

In the eyes of a lot of people,"appearance is everything;" meaning...if someone APPEARS to be dishonest, that's all it takes. I'm not saying that this is LOGICALLY correct; just that it exists and affects people's thinking and decision making.

Bush has certainly had his moments where he appeared significantly LESS than honest.

You can say what you want about Bill. He's not the current president.

Would you buy a used car from some guy you THOUGHT was a shyster? I think not.

I'm sure that Bush - in his own mind (whatever that is) - thought he was creating a very different, very "upstanding" appearance.

Apparently, a lot of people didn't agree.

Answer 9

That's funny, I was about to pose the same question, only I was going to mention conservatives' seeming inability to reason inductively. That is, I try to do opposition research, read the occasional conservative columnist (Charles Krauthammer doesn't make me vomit as much, for instance), but often I find that they set out a hypothesis, then carefully select data to prove it, rather than ask a research question, gather the data, then analyze to find some kind of contingent truth (contingent on more data surfacing that refutes the working conclusion).

It's not so much that he lies in the straight-up sense of blatant falsehood, i.e., telling you that the sky is in fact green when it's clearly blue. Rather, I think sometimes folks take issue with his staking out a position and then when it goes bad, abandoning it without comment. Such as, the WMD threat in Iraq is such that it constitutes a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States. When it turned out there were no WMDs (and please don't say they're hiding them in Syria - why would they?, or mention the more than 20-year old chemical rounds they dug out of the desert - that wasn't what the administration meant, you know it, we all know it, and such assertion, I hope, is one of the many ridiculous statements that got Rick Santorum canned), you know, we'd sort of like an apology. I mean, Judy Miller got fired for that nonsense. But, instead, it's moving on - let's talk about social security reform - how'd you like me to gamble your money on that big slot machine in the sky, the stock market?

As far as more tangible examples for you to get your tiny mind around, how 'bout the Libby case. Bush stated he'd fire anybody involved in the leaking of classified information, but declined to fire Rove after Rove's involvement was confirmed. In fact, other than sending Libby out to be the sacrificial lamb, Bush closed ranks around those other clowns.

During the 2004 campaign, Bush claimed “Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.”

And we know that to be false - he chose not to seek the court orders, and when called on this, claimed there was no time to do so, because of the imminent nature of the threats. However, the FISA legislation requires the president to notify Congress within 3 days AFTER the wiretap is put in place.

No, he hasn't perjured himself, the way Clinton did, but as distasteful as it may be to have the President of the United States getting a bj from an intern, and then lying about it, nobody died because of it, and the Constitution wasn't shredded under Clinton. If placed under oath the way Clinton was, and asked questions about, say, pre-war intelligence manipulation, I shudder to think what would come out of the man's mouth.

Answer 10

I don't know, or get it. I am Republican, so I use facts in a discussion. Don't try to ask a Liberal this question. They won't make sense, and use opinion, like it was a fact, to answer it.

Answer 11

Liberals by their very nature are not smart enough to know the difference. To them, opinion is fact.