🚀 go-pugleaf

"MWSmith" wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps you wouldn't look so foolish if you bothered to read ALL
>> of the words in the text to which you respond. Accusations are not
>> the same as being found guilty.
>
> What a buffoon.

You are the only person left in this conversation who does not understand
the difference between an accusation and proof of guilt. Who is the buffoon?



> You clintonistas crack me up. He was guilty. We all know he was
> guilty.

Many people SUSPECT he was guilty. Your political beliefs predispose you to
believe *anything* negative about Clinton, so you mistake your strong belief
for knowledge. I have friends who similarly "knew" the Vikings were going to
beat the Giants. Like you, they misused the word "fact".



> In 1993, he had not been proven guilty, but he was, in fact, guilty
> of numerous extramarital affairs at that time.

Once again, you fail to demonstrate simple reading comprehension skills.
Even a buffoon can see that such an argument, even if true, adds nothing to
a comparison of the first 6 weeks of Bush's presidency vs. that of Clinton.

Mr. Moseman asked:

    "How many extramarital affairs has Bush been found guilty of?
    (Let alone ones WHILE being President... and lying about it.)"

If this question were asked after Bush had served eight years in office, the
comparison would have merit. But if it were asked about Clinton, and done so
eight years earlier than it was (after Clinton had served 6 weeks), it would
have elicited a collective shrug. None of us had even heard of Whitewater at
that point. Clinton was largely scandal-free, as Bush is now. Why not ask
how mant pardons Bush has sold? It's just as relevant.

Should we assume that Bush will have no scandals because one hasn't come to
light yet? Why is a buffoon able to express clear thought so much better
than you are?



--
Dave Anderson

Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message. Use
of this email address implies consent to these terms.