parados wrote: That's right. I was "splitting hairs" when I asked you to provide supporting evidence when you made this statement.
Quote:Here we see the result of failing to read the thread, or history. Clinton accepted the interference of a civilian with zero authority... resulting in millions of dead Koreans and eventually plutonium based nuclear weaponry.
Somehow I don't think it is "splitting hairs" when someone makes an outlandish statement and the other side asks they provide some supporting evidence. (Which you still have failed to provide anything about how millions died as a result of Clinton.) It seems it is only "splitting hairs" when you get caught making statements that you can't support and don't dare retract because it would cause your entire argument to fall apart.
Actually, you asked:
parados wrote:millions of dead Koreans?
Wow.. Are you back to this canard again?
Please present some factual evidence that millions of Koreans have died in the last 12 years, let alone they died as a result of any action by Clinton.
Insisting on direct iron clad evidence, from inside the most secretive country on earth, is absurd. However, the preponderance of available data clearly suggests MILLIONS died. This is a pedantic side-point anyway. Your insistence that Iron Clad proof be provided that Clinton is responsible, as opposed to accepting the opposing opinion that his actions make him so, is pedantic as well. The numbers you sought have been supplied and ignored, on multiple threads, from multiple sources, repeatedly. That you neither accept it, nor demonstrate a propensity to do your own Google for easily obtained statistics is your problem... and further serves to prove my assertion that further discussion with you is pointless. Circling over the exact same arguments, and extracting tidbits to take issue with is your game, and I find it too boring to play. (I can't believe I let you suck me into this idiotic, petty pedantic aspect of the discussion again. Good day.)
