No, I don’t wonder that, precisely because I do think.
You should try it sometime.
So essentially your intention in this thread is to extrapolate as wildly as you possibly can from your admitted ignorance, in the hope that you’ll rile someone enough to actually go to the effort of making you less thick? Why don’t you just find out yourself?
Morons like you?
Edit: Damn you, Blather!
:dubious: See, that’s just one more example of how a quote gets twisted out of context, and a meme is born that loses all connection to the truth, and takes on a life of his own!
It wasn’t about cannibalism, it was about W’s homosexual experimentation! “Eating people” can mean more than one thing, you know! How do you think he got acquainted with Guckert/Gannon?
There are “concerns” about whether or not the Clintons killed Vince Foster. This is not because the “concerns” have any merit, but because right-wing shills like you can’t give up on their hard-on for the Clintons.
No way.
W has never in his public career been that articulate.
Un.
Fucking.
Believable.
I’m done here. I’m going to teach algebra to the cat.
One can speculate on many reasons other than the one you seem hell-bent on “proving.” Let me give you just one hypthetical:
Clinton formulates the health care plan. Limbaugh castigates her for it, and makes up some dumb shit about how it will be illegal to pay for your own health care. A bunch of moronic dittoheads pick up on it and believe it, as moronic dittoheads are wont to do. Clinton refutes this silly notion in the quote above.
Does that seem at least a tiny bit plausible? Does it seem like the most likely explanation in the know universe, in fact?
You can keep posting this all night, but until someone posts a refutatation that holds water–such as “this allegation was proven to have been made up by Limbaugh when he said such and so”…or “this allegation was erroneously spread by Newt Gingrich and several members of congress when they were intervied on Meet The Press. It was subsequently proven to have been false when…etc.” (you know, the kind of information that normally flows like water around here) I’m afraid you’re gonna be waiting a while.
Good idea. You’re not contributing much here.
The only reason that’s not the most bone-numbingly stupid thing I’ve heard in weeks is because it’s not your only post in the thread.
BURDEN OF PROOF, pal. So far the sum total “evidence” for your assertion is a denial. Come up with a single solitary scrap of evidence in favour of your assertion, then maybe you won’t look like a complete idiot.
So to refute your stupid assertions, people not only have to provide actual cites to the contrary, they have to locate the precise source of your idiocy and a specific refutation of its purveyor?
The mind boggles. Do you really think this is how it works?
This is why I don’t watch sit-coms. I get all the comedy I can handle right here on the Dope.
Unintentional, intentional, it doesn’t really matter.
Yes, evidently he does. All the more is the pity. This is the kind of “thinking” that gets people like Bush elected twice.
And yes, the mind boggles.
Starving Artist, even though we’re politically opposed on just about everything, I’ve always tried to treat you with respect. You’re making that really difficult, what with your bone-crushing stupidity.
I’m not saying that according to normal practice around here things wouldn’t normally be done in reverse order. What I am saying is that I heard this claim years ago (my post is gonna have to be my cite on this one as I haven’t been able to locate a Google reference as to when I heard it) and was reminded of it today, and that in my mind HRC is a would-be dictator for attempting it. In order for my mind to be changed (i.e., not the board’s; it’s not all about the board, you know), I’m gonna have to be disabused of the notion with some factual evidence.
First you say she’ll be a better commander in chief than Bush, and now you say she isn’t hated as much as Bush.
You must really hate Hillary to constantly damn her with faint praise like this.
But you don’t have any factual evidence for it. The only evidence you have is subjective, i.e. “I remember it that way”. Since literally everyone else who’s posted here does not remember it happening, doesn’t that vast subjective evidence outweigh your own individual subjective evidence?
Has it occurred to you that you are better positioned than any of us to trace back the meme in question to its source? Also, that you are the one most interested in it?
So go to the library and do some hard research. Not one of us. You.
SOP for some people, sadly. Forget thinking - way too hard, that. Instead, listen to the righty apologist loons and then adopt their talking points and try to pass them off as your own ‘opinions’.
But, and let’s be clear here, you’ve outright said that direct language from the bill in question that explicitly and plainly refutes your ludicrous claim is not “evidence”. You want a cite that specifically refutes your personal interpretation of a source you can’t remember, about a bill you apparently can’t even read. Well, as luck would have it, I stumbled upon the following while browsing the Information Superhighway today.
I await your refutation of the chicken-molestation allegations with bated breath.
If you’re not going to accept the proof that has been offered up so far, then try a little logic, what little of it you seem to posess.
You’re right. Clinton would be a dictator to try it. And she’d have been an idiot to even state such a thing. She’s not an idiot. By all accounts she’s quite smart. There is no fucking way in hell that she’d say something like that.
There. Case closed.