Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
It shows the hipocrisy.
|
Are you suggesting that Jim in CT in order to discuss what he feels are reasons that Rice should not be made Secretary of State, has also to point out that Bush had supposedly done something similar or else he's being hypocritical? This would lead to over-lengthy awkward conversations where every speaker back and forth had to inject other previous examples to whatever he says everytime he says something. The discussion might dwell a long time on each speaker going back to point out other examples of previous Presidents and their SecStates before getting to the discussion at hand. Anyway, in most cases, those previous "problems" were already discussed at the time they occurred. Must they be rehashed over and over every time a new case is discussed or else it shows hypocrisy? Not to mention that Jim doesn't even equate the two circumstances so to him it is not hypocrisy. That would be you labeling him, as you do everytime you want to point out his supposed hypocrisy and labeling. Was it hypocritical of you to point out what you think Bush did to get us to invade Iraq, but did not point out how other presidents, including Democrats, manipulated us into war?
Or is this just a way to change the topic?