Reply to thread

You'll jump on anything, in your attempt to further your case. Needing to do so, is indicative of how weak your argument really is, and that you're very much aware of it.


I should have said imagined inconsistencies, as opposed to the very real story changing by Broaddrick.





 That's a most convenient excuse. Unless you have some evidence, to automatically assume that it applies to Broaddrick, is making another giant leap.


In fact, almost all of your points, in regard to Bill Clinton, necessitate a suspension of logic and common sense, in order to make them, even the least bit, believable. This seems to be true of all conspiracy theories, as they can't stand close scrutiny, and are wholly unable to stand on their own.


Back
Top