Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ratbastid
Marv: It's ironic that you would quote me in huge red in the middle of doing the very thing I was complaining about in that quote. I very much appreciate you making my point for me.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ratbastid
To address what I assume is the point you're attempting to make: I'm actually not crazy about Clinton's talking about "killing him". If that had actually happened, I'm pretty sure I would have had a problem with it. Difference is, I'm not slavishly in favor of whatever "my guy" does the way you are with "your guy". I don't mean that as a "no, YOU"--I say that because it speaks to why you would post what you just posted. Just because Clinton says it doesn't mean I'm for it. I suspect that's a shocking notion to you, given that whatever Bush says, you're for.
|
You want to provide some proof about the "slavish part?" I've quoted you--why don't you do the same for something I've said?
And speaking of "slavish," it would sure be fun to post Dick Cheney's interview with Tim Russert. No matter how much Cheney was attacked, unlike Clinton, he kept his cool, even when Tim made hunting jokes. How do you think your boy would have reacted if a blue dress had been mentioned, which was probably why Clinton couldn't concentrate enough to kill Bin Laden?
It's pretty obvious who deserved to be a leader of our country, and it wasn't Clinton.
Lastly, if I understand you correctly, you accept Clinton's story that we didn't have enough legal basis to take custody of Bin Laden, so Slick decided he DID have the basis to kill him. Unless, of course, in a couple of years, good 'ol Bill says he "spoke inaccurately" again.
Maybe his "slaves" would believe that line again, but nobody else would.