That's awfully pathetic, you must know.
Here's what I don't understand about people like you.
Why defend the indefensible? If its ugliness is obvious, you can call those who point it out names all you want, but its ugliness remains, and you lose all credibility. You're just protesting and denying to no end. You end up with support of the sort you just got from Shoot1st.
As for me, it would never occur to me to claim vociferously that Clinton didn't rape Juanita Broderick, because I am convinced that although I hate that he did it, he did it. I believe he did it even though there is no videotape of the event, and I've noticed that those who deny it are people (much like you) who have clear denial-agendas and simply don't care about the ugliness itself, or, more often, are those who find it incredible and haven't made it their business to find out about the case.
That represents a character difference between you, and people like you, and me and people like me. It's interesting. Studies must have been done on this phenomenon.
[ I edited out a descriptive phrase ] |
