Gilbert for Prez?

[davewindsor]

My point is that the opinions of someone proven to be as incredibly unreliable as Jeanine Pirro should never be cited as proof. That article I referenced dissects many fallacies she has espoused, and I could find plenty of others to make my point if I had the time. Her "Muslim no go zone" nonsense should be evidence enough already. And I know better than to debate the fallacies in your own account of events. That would take much more time.

It's clear to me it was a mistake for Hillary Clinton to use a personal server for government emails. It's also clear to me that in itself was not criminal. No one except people misinformed on the matter is saying it was. In fact, even though it shouldn't have been, it was allowed, and always had been. Government old fogeys are way behind the curve with technology.

And I agree, classified emails are another story. But I'm not a lawyer, and even if I were, I don't have access to enough of the specifics to evaluate whether there was any criminal wrongdoing. There are large teams of people currently looking into this who are much more capable of that job than we are. They have the necessary training and access. I suggest we let them do their work and don't pretend we can do it better than them. And surely you know an investigation is a far cry from an accusation.

As far as the Clinton Foundation conspiracy theories, again, I don't have enough information and don't claim an opinion, but my instinct tells me to be more skeptical here. One thing for sure: there certainly are Clinton haters, just like there are Obama haters, and there were G W Bush haters before that. It's irresponsible of you if you rely on your information from any of them.

You may find a common thread among many of my comments here. I trust facts, and distrust unfounded emotional opinions.

And that's the last I have to say on this matter.

I wish you well.

What you are doing is a fallacy.

A set of facts and a citation of laws broken was presented to reach the conclusion that Hillary is corrupt.

You respond by attacking the presenter of facts--Judge Pirro--instead of offering any facts that contradict the facts presented.

Just because Judge Pirro added rhetoric to a set of facts doesn't make the facts themselves false. You have to show the facts are false, not challenge the rhetoric, to contradict the conclusion that Hillary is corrupt.

Funny how in your third last sentence you say, "I trust facts, and distrust unfounded emotional opinions."; yet, you don't offer any facts to the contrary, just an unfounded emotional opinion like "... my instinct tells me to be more skeptical here."

So, based on your own reasoning, why should anyone trust what you said? It's kinda like Kwame saying he's innocent and his political rivals are just out to get him so it has no merit, when the facts proved he was corrupt.

[Baselinepunk]

What you are doing is a fallacy.

A set of facts and a citation of laws broken was presented to reach the conclusion that Hillary is corrupt.

You respond by attacking the presenter of facts--Judge Pirro--instead of offering any facts that contradict the facts presented.

Just because Judge Pirro added rhetoric to a set of facts doesn't make the facts themselves false. You have to show the facts are false, not challenge the rhetoric, to contradict the conclusion that Hillary is corrupt.

Funny how in your third last sentence you say, "I trust facts, and distrust unfounded emotional opinions."; yet, you don't offer any facts to the contrary, just an unfounded emotional opinion like "... my instinct tells me to be more skeptical here."

So, based on your own reasoning, why should anyone trust what you said? It's kinda like Kwame saying he's innocent and his political rivals are just out to get him so it has no merit, when the facts proved he was corrupt.

"You respond by attacking the presenter of facts--Judge Pirro--instead of offering any facts that contradict the facts presented."

You discredit the source is the source is crappy.

In this case, Pirro is about as reliable of a source as wikipedia -- crap.

She's a shill for Fox Entertainment who will say anything that will keep the checks coming.

Her opinion holds about as much weight as a set of Styrofoam balls; therefore, she is merely a secondary source, as best, and considering her past spew -- her words are far from facts.

Now, bring up this argument and cite some primary sources; then I'm sure we can all talk about it. But using her as a source of "fact" is just not right.

[davewindsor]

"You respond by attacking the presenter of facts--Judge Pirro--instead of offering any facts that contradict the facts presented."

You discredit the source is the source is crappy.

In this case, Pirro is about as reliable of a source as wikipedia -- crap.

She's a shill for Fox Entertainment who will say anything that will keep the checks coming.

Her opinion holds about as much weight as a set of Styrofoam balls; therefore, she is merely a secondary source, as best, and considering her past spew -- her words are far from facts.

Now, bring up this argument and cite some primary sources; then I'm sure we can all talk about it. But using her as a source of "fact" is just not right.

You're doing the exact same thing. You know the difference between a "fact" and an "opinion", right? Just because you disagree with an "opinion" doesn't invalidate the "facts". Facts were presented. If you disagree with the facts, present contradictory facts to prove your point.

[bust]

You're doing the exact same thing. You know the difference between a "fact" and an "opinion", right? Just because you disagree with an "opinion" doesn't invalidate the "facts". Facts were presented. If you disagree with the facts, present contradictory facts to prove your point.

It's ironic you say that because the whole problem with your argument is you take Jeannine Pirro's opinions as fact. She presents them as facts; she's nothing if not bluster. But that doesn't make them facts. She has a proven proclivity to misrepresent facts. Don't be fooled.

See if you can back up her "facts" with a reputable source. It doesn't have to be a "liberal" one. It can be the Wall Street Journal, which like Fox is owned by Murdoch. Just don't take them from their opinion page. Especially not their op-ed page. By definition those are opinions, not facts.

There is no point discussing this with someone who doesn't understand the difference. I have the humility to admit when I don't have enough facts to formulate an opinion I can back up. And I don't have enough facts to debate your opinions. Neither do you.

Besides that it's no one else's job to do your research. We've been trying to point you in the right direction. Or at least to point you away from the wrong one where you've been. The rest is up to you. Until then, try some humility too.

[davewindsor]

It's ironic you say that because the whole problem with your argument is you take Jeannine Pirro's opinions as fact. She presents them as facts; she's nothing if not bluster. But that doesn't make them facts. She has a proven proclivity to misrepresent facts. Don't be fooled.

See if you can back up her "facts" with a reputable source. It doesn't have to be a "liberal" one. It can be the Wall Street Journal, which like Fox is owned by Murdoch. Just don't take them from their opinion page. Especially not their op-ed page. By definition those are opinions, not facts.

There is no point discussing this with someone who doesn't understand the difference. I have the humility to admit when I don't have enough facts to formulate an opinion I can back up. And I don't have enough facts to debate your opinions. Neither do you.

Besides that it's no one else's job to do your research. We've been trying to point you in the right direction. Or at least to point you away from the wrong one where you've been. The rest is up to you. Until then, try some humility too.

How can one show humility when they see corruption??

It's an undeniable fact that Hillary broke the law with the private e-mail server. She even apologized for doing it [[admission of guilt right there). It's also a fact about influence peddling with the Clinton foundation. You see the favours returned to contributors that make donations to the foundation. It's a matter of record; they are not opinions.

It's your turn to provide facts to the contrary if you disagree--not an opinion piece that attacks her opinion. That's your job if you want to keep debating this. Why should I provide another article citing facts so you can just attack the writer of that article too without any factual basis. Her case is proven with facts. Watch both videos. It's all there.