Quote:
Originally Posted by Infidel Dog
That's interesting. Which specific dots do you think were not connected credibly? See, cause I thought they were connected quite well. If you can educate me on what's weak. I'll look it up, and post my results here. Coyote can get the links she claims she's yearning for, and find new, exciting reasons to ignore those as she has the ones already posted. It will be entertaining.
|
I think it's just the logic really. They are assuming that because one thing must be true, another must be true. Like the Clinton adviser telling the President to use the words "sustainable development". Just because that adviser issued a memo on such doesn't mean that Clinton made his decision based on that memo. That memo also doesn't mean that the Clinton Administration was trying to do anything nefarious. That memo also doesn't mean that there is a direct connection between that memo and any loss of property rights.
It's all tied together with gossamer.
__________________
Continue that line of reasoning, Muffin... I'm judging you. Harshly.
You get the respect you give. And if you're a Republican, you b*tch about paybacks being a b*tch. So sorry you're mad your guy is getting the respect you gave ours, Snowflakes.