Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I may have argued it that way. In my thinking, all is fair and innocent in politics. (I’ll stipulate I did. I truly don’t recall because what I say to you doesn’t mean shit to me.) It makes no difference. I think obstruction of a political investigation is fine. The investigation is tainted, so a target is excused no matter what he does.
I’d give Clinton back his law license. Guilty or not, it’s frivolous. Only matters to officious opponents like you, and in the case of Clinton, Richard Mellon Scaife. Right, left — all hall monitors.
So again, Ralph, or Cartman, what’s my demerit? Cite me the rule, and how many days detention for refusing to recognize the naive ideal politics should be assiduously policed by opponents starting political witch hunts against each other?
|
Ooh, you’re such a jaded bad boy! Making fun of those nerds! I bet the suburban cocktail party chicks eat that routine up. Do you wear a black leather jacket with a heater tucked behind your ear when you deliver your little speeches?
Your problem is you incorrectly assume that I am engaging you on the substance of your little “all is fair in politics and war” thesis. BORING. Remember how Ty said that debating you is like reading a book review where the reviewer doesn’t talk about the book at all? The title of my book is “Sebastian is Always Wrong. (And then he lies about it.)”
