Just the facts Ma'am

Richard S. wrote:I look for relevant real documents and facts from reliable resources. This is why you'll never be able dispute what I post, you can't dispute the truth when its backed up factual resources.

The problem I have with FACTS Richard, is that most alleged facts are not facts at all. This is why I find that argument & debate is often more enlightening & stimulates real thinking more than just reading alleged FACTS, STATISTICS & other things which anyone can find to support ANYTHING on the internet.


Example: If I state the the Earth is flat, we can either debate that absurd remark or I could just provide links to prove it:

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublons ... ociety.htm
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/


There's an old saying that goes: "There are lies...Damned lies....& statistic" (or something like that)

I would rather openly discuss an issue, one on one, with another human being rather than wade through a bunch of links, videos, etc that I can't debate.....I can just sit there & read/watch them without comment......IMO, that's no fun & not the best way to learn things.

Just my opinion.

Devil505 wrote:The problem I have with FACTS Richard, is that most alleged facts are not facts at all.

So what you're saying is the documents I linked too on Government websites are fake, the articles printed back when the points in time I outlined from such newspapers as the New York Times were planted and the C-Span videos of Democrats persistently backing the F&F coming out of their own mouths were somehow faked?

IMO, that's no fun & not the best way to learn things.

If you're going to debate an issue, learn anything from it, or teach someone else you have to have to first have some knowledge of the issue. Opinion takes a back seat to facts in any debate.

What one person calls a fact and what another calls a fact are different things. When I posted the birthcertificate and the link to factchek.org most considered that to not be a fact because they couldn't actually hold the birth certificate in their hands. Most in this forum do not consider CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NY TIMES etc. as documentation of a fact. SO who the heck decides what a fact is? Each of us does, but that doesn't mean we will get three people to agree what is and isn't a fact. Backing things up with so called facts on this site seems pointless at times.

Well CBS and the NY times have been caught quit a few times in outright lies so can you blame us?

Richard S. wrote:So what you're saying is the documents I linked too on Government websites are fake, the articles printed back when the points in time I outlined from such newspapers as the New York Times were planted and the C-Span videos of Democrats persistently backing the F&F coming out of their own mouths were somehow faked?

Since all the above things are created by human beings, often with an agenda, they are all suspect & require much independent research to verify or debunk their claims. Just because a document is posted on a government website, or in a newspaper doesn't necessarily mean that document is true. It was written by a PERSON with an agenda in many cases. I suspect everything I read Richard...... The only way I''ll accept something as FACT is if it can be supported by independent investigation from a number of sources...which is very time consuming & no fun! As far as CSPAN "videos of Democrats persistently backing the F&F coming out of their own mouths".....If I search long enough I could find other CSPAN videos showing just the reverse of that argument. (showing Repubs doing that.....It's SUBJECTIVE as to how you interpret what was said)
"Facts" are sometimes deliberately faked to back up an agenda or they could just be innocently wrong. I guess my background makes me suspect everything unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Most things can't.

Richard S. wrote:If you're going to debate an issue, learn anything from it, or teach someone else you have to have to first have some knowledge of the issue. Opinion takes a back seat to facts in any debate.

I agree, but this "knowledge" can often come from discussion/debate itself, where you can actually TEST your opinions against others & draw better conclusion than if you just read what some "Expert" tells you. The problem with experts providing "Facts" is that if you get 5 of them on any subject, you'll usually get 5 different "Expert" opinions & claimed "Facts".

As far as the links I provided go to archived government documents, if anyone wishes to dispute their accuracy or authenticity I'd love to hear the reason why or provide some insight as to why they are faked. "Could" be faked doesn't count.

I beleive I used two outside sources one of which was the NYT, Certainly you don't want to beleive everything you read in the Newspaper but the specific part of the article I cited can be confirmed from other resources and would certainly make complete sense since the rules layed out by Clinton for the CRA was his baby.

As far as the videos... give me a break.

Richard S. wrote:Certainly you don't want to beleive everything you read in the Newspaper but the specific part of the article I cited can be confirmed from other resources and would certainly make complete sense since the rules layed out by Clinton for the CRA was his baby.

Without straying off topic here, I think we are getting into a much deeper area Richard.
How do you derive the truth? What is a fact? I don't think we can ever really agree on an issue until we all have a common understanding/agreement of these things.
One person's FACT is another person's OPINION.

Maybe we should start a specific thread on how we can commonly agree on these things, which(.....in my opinion .)..are the heart of most of our disagreements in this country.

Man!! You are quick Richard!! (already moved the discussion)

Well Devil if for example we'll take the Press Briefing from 1993 when Clinton announces his intention to use the CRA so low income homeowners can get mortgages.

http://clinton6.nara.gov/1993/12/1993-1 ... .text.html

Why should I beleive this is true?

First of all it comes from the Nation Archives and Records Administration, this where the http://nara.gov somes in. This establishes the source as a legitimate source of information. There job is document all government records, happenings. It was just recently that they had the White House under fire for deleting government emails. These are professionals and take their job seriously. Certainly if someone was falsifying documents it would be found out.

Secondly there really is no reason to falsify this document is there? It's just a simple press briefing and public one at that. In this day and age falsifying this type of document is all but impossible to do as it will have been recorded elsewhere from the media.

If you still might be skeptical we can always use the internet archive which is an independent organization which takes a snapshot of pages when they crawl them. For example the document in question above was archived on Oct 18, 2003 and again on Oct 04, 2006. so if we wanted to compare the official document to what appeared on that page on those dates we can.

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://cli ... .text.html

Now you could argue that or any document could be changed or altered but I really think that would quite stretch. AFAIK the National Archives integrity is unimpeachable. I'd certainly hope and would think there are many safeguards in place to prevent such things.

Richard S. wrote:Why should I beleive this is true?

Believe WHAT is true?

1. That the document itself is genuine?
2. It accurately discloses the exact words that were allegedly spoken?
a. Will/can the speaker verify that those were indeed his words?
b. Who reported it?
c. Who transcribed it?
d. How can we be sure it hasn't been altered to change it's intent?


This is what a court of law would want to know before something can be admitted into evidence for a jury to consider. Facts have to be tested. An expert can testify that something is what he says, but the the opposing side can introduce their own "Expert" to debunk the first one.

I'm not trying to be a jerk here Richard...Simple questions are usually not simple at all! These are the TESTS that I always think of when presented with "Facts"

I like the court "Beyond a reasonable doubt" standard when I accept something as fact.

Just remember Ronald Reagan's famous admonition: "Trust....but verify!"

Devil.................please stop. Enough is enough. Don't you have anything else to do?

SuperBeetle wrote:Devil.................please stop. Enough is enough. Don't you have anything else to do?

Ummmmm....No I don't!

(But I will stop)

This kind of reminds me of the Sandy Berger fiasco, former president Bill Clinton's national security adviser, who intentionally removing and destroying copies of classified documents about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Mar31.html

I swear true story. Does pleading guilty help validate the story?

One of the National Archive facilities is not far from me in College Park, MD. I have friend who got a job there and shared his experiences with me. My friend, a retired National Security Agency civil servant, had all the clearances to access classified information. Many if not most of the government classified documents are automatically de-classified after 50 years. But it still needs a review. That was his job. Day after day reading 50+ year old state department telegrams and searching for key words that would require further review. The job pay was good, work hours were flexible, but it drove him nuts. He couldn't stand it after six months and quit. Say boring, again and again.

I agree with Richard about the integrity of the documents there, you can not even bring a pen into the building, only a pencil and a small amount of paper. No camera equipment without a special review and never flash equipment.

I agree, but this "knowledge" can often come from discussion/debate itself, where you can actually TEST your opinions against others & draw better conclusion than if you just read what some "Expert" tells you. The problem with experts providing "Facts" is that if you get 5 of them on any subject, you'll usually get 5 different "Expert" opinions & claimed "Facts".

Exactly the method people used to decide the earth was flat and the center of the universe.

Richard, It is your board under your control, so all I can conclude is that you enjoy playing with trolls.

If you don't feed them, or if you ban them, they will go away.
I'm not alone in wishing that you would kick the trolls, for me they ruin reading this site.

In case you don't know, a troll is someone who posts deliberately obtuse and inflamatory material, just to get a rise out of the people who either try to help the troll "see the light", or just post trash to make people mad.

Trolls are often 13 year old boys, with infinite time on their hands and lacking the phisical dexterity to catch and pull the wings off of flies.

Trolls love attention, they get their kicks out of pushing your buttons and pulling your chains.
They will NEVER stop as long as you respond to them. A troll could agree 100% with your argument, but would still post obtuse, bizzare, and circular counter-arguments, because for the Troll the pleasure is in getting a response out of you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)