Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:

Captain Sammitch said:
Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:

Captain Sammitch said:
I really don't need to add anything to that, as I really see no need to 'defend' myself from you, Double-standard Man. (I'll just use DSM, it's quicker.) There really isn't any 'outrage'. Call it an emphatic observation. Or don't, I don't care.



I was just asking a question Cap. Do you feel the secret service guy was doing a good job by delivering tabloid style news about people he's supposed to be protecting? It just seems like he's getting a pass for doing a bad job.



It's not like the guy WROTE A BOOK (or even a novella) about the sordid details of the Clintons' private lives. In the course of casual conversation with a personal acquaintance, he shared off-the-record anecdotal observations concerning matters that in and of themselves would not be grounds for any sort of civil or criminal proceedings. He doesn't need his character picked apart just because he committed the great unpardonable sin of sharing something less than complimentary about The Bitch™.



So in other words, he gets a pass because it's nasty stuff about Hillary.



You really should try paying attention to something someone who's not you or one of your "sources" posts. I'd repeat myself, but I'm not sure if it's me, G-Man, Wonder Boy or PJP you're choosing to ignore.

Quote:

Quote:

It's funny because the tiniest little rumor from the most irrelevant member of the peanut gallery is treated like absolute gospel by you and a ton of other people whenever it's something about Dubya.



Care to offer an example where I've done that?



I'd try to narrow it down, but there are several entire threads on this and the next page where your selective obliviousness is featured prominently. You wouldn't be setting yourself up for this nearly as badly if you didn't have that painfully hypocritical "Fair play!" user title.

go.

ᴚ ᴀ ᴐ ᴋ ᴊ ᴌ ᴧ
ಠ_ಠ