Quote:
Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Nov 3 2004, 01:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Nov 3 2004, 01:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Quote:
Originally posted by Bingo@Nov 3 2004, 06:46 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Lanny_MacDonald
|
Quote:
@Nov 3 2004, 11:54 AM
What ever turns you on Cow.# Toss it out there if it makes you feel better.# The comments in question were made three years ago, long before we had a pinch of the information we have now.# Based on the information that was available I made those comments.# Based on the information that has come available I have changed my stance accordingly.# I would hope you have done the same as well.
|
So what you're saying is ...
You are using information from today to make a better decision yesterday? Man I bet, Bush, Clinton, and the rest all wish they had that ability. What a great tool to have ... hindsight.
|
I would agree with what you are saying if I flip flopped over night, but that is not the case. My stance on the e-mail in question changed over a three year span. In fact, I changed my stance on Iraq shortly after that e-mail was sent. As more information came available and more exposure to the evidence was possible my views changed. It was a slow process, not like Cow tries to make it look. Its not like YOU were missing for four years and didn't have access to the information we have had on Bush and make your blind case for voting for him. If you had said three years ago that you would vote for Bush, no problem. But being a supposed thinking man and still saying he was worthy of voting for against the evidence piled against him, well that just doesn't make sense. [/b][/quote]
Sure ... but that's my point.
18 months later with no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I'm sure Bush would love to change his mind on Iraq. He can't do that. You did.
That's the difference.