For years I have been claiming that the Democrats hate Bush so much they are losing their senses, and coming from a reformed Clinton hater, I know the illness when I see it. Enter exhibit A of said sickness:
I started the post with these sentences:
One of the most annoying things about arguing with Democrats is that they simply refuse to argue honestly. Whether it be denying facts in favor of suspicions, leveling ad hominems in lieu of facts, or, as is the case with this Calpundit post, comparing things that just aren’t the same.
The bolding will be obvious in a moment. I then spend the entire post explaining, complete with links, how this is absolutely not the same thing, as all of the people who stayed in the White House are old friends and associates, who later on in life have become campaign donors, but who are still “LIFELONG FRIENDS AND ASSOCIATES,” including one man who introduced Bush to his wife. Clinton, on the other hand, merely sold the White House to ANYONE WHO DONATED. Get the difference?
Oliver doesn’t, and as one of the people I linked to as peddling this nonsense, quickly comments:
Yes, John, I’m sure their campaign contributions had nothing to do with staying overnight at the WH. Frankly, energy meetings to the highest bidder worry me more than a night at the Lincoln, but this is just the latest in the GOP’s “do as I say” policy.
LikeI said- arguing with Democrats is pointless- they simply deny facts in favor of their suspicions. You really can’t make this stuff up. Keep drinking the kool-aid, guys.
BTW, Oliver- There was no quid pro quo with the Energy Bill. Unlike Clinton’s pardons, the bill was put before the public and voted on- no trickery involved at all. You can disagree with the bill all you want, but being pissy and labelling silly accusations about how the bill was written is, well, silly and pointless.