Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Please point out the parts of my statement of facts that were subjective as opposed to objective.
|
Ok -- let's try these two on for size -- by comparison with a counterpart from the other side of the aisle:
Spanky's value-laden statement:
3) . . . . "Clinton Shut down the government by refusing to sign a bill that curbed the growth of entitlements as much as the Republican wanted it to."
Contrasting subjective, value-laden statement:
"Gingrich and the Republican Congress forced the governement to shut down by refusing to pass a budget bill that the President could sign."
Spanky's second value-laden statement:
"4) Clinton used his veto power to force the Republican Congress to raise spending."
Two contrasting subjective, value-laden statements:
"Congress has complete control over the budget and could cut spending any time they want to [sound familiar?]. Even so, the Republican Congress: (a) failed to convince the American poeple of the wisdom of their policy proposals; or (b) failed to compromise with the President on a budget that included responsible tax increases on the wealthiest Americans as well as meaningful entitlement reform."
I'm sure you can see the bias in the ones I wrote, not sure you can see the bias in yours.
Also --
"When Gingrich and the Republicans were elected they tried to slow the growth of entitlements."
There is truth to this, but this statement is too broad and sweeping to be a "fact." Your implication is that Clinton did not. Did not Clinton also have proposals during his tenure intended to curb the growth in entitlement spending (including, e.g. health-care reform). He should get credit for that too.
S_A_M
efs
