Sometimes you mix them up.
This is the statement which pretty much ruins your credibility here. You claim this is all mischarecterzations or exagerations and that is was a "hit piece" written by "die hard Clinton supporters" yet - when presented with similar pieces concerning Clinton you refuse to acknowledge it might be biased or a hit piece or a witchhunt. And all of this - plus your frequent bringing up of Clinton in other debates makes your statement "I don't hate Clinton" a real joke.
You are stretching it pretty thin here.
And here you make a logical fallacy. Like with Flowers - just because one person lied about something (Clinton) doesn't mean the other person (Flowers) is telling the truth. Here - just because your source indicts Republicans doesn't mean it isn't biased. The world isn't made up of only Democrats and Republicans or Conservatives and Liberals. You are creating false dichotomies. For example a source that is Liberatarion in outlook could well have a clear bias against both Republicans and Democrats - and it isn't any less of a bias.
I find it amusing. Your statement "I don't hate Clinton" is specifically and frequently contradicted by your other postings. You spend an inordinate amount of energy posting about his evils (far more then the evils of Bush & Co. whom you also claim to despise). And yet your position is being mischaracterized?
I don't think so. I say she protesteth too much.
Was it? A quick google of "Arkancide" placed it alongside "Clinton body count" in many articles and referenced many aspects of the "body count". Nice lie. Try again.
You have quite the potty mouth when people don't agree with you. Again - there are more sides then simply Democrats and Republicans. Simply because a source references both doesn't mean it is unbiased you silly cow
Nor does it mean it's wrong.
There you go again. You really need some new lines.
