AZ Congresswomen Shot, betcha a Lib did it!

[sirs]

Not some mass "right side" pointing at the "left side"

mass? where did i claim that? and if i didn't claim it, why are you expecting me to provide evidence of it?

So, who the hell is "the right side", in your both sides doing it right out of the gate claim??

Apparently Kramer and Cu4 are all that make up the "the right side" and ....... the vast majority of the MSM, pundits, certain Sheriffs, and Brass are "the left side".  Well, that so accurately represents "both sides" so well, doesn't it           

[BT]

Not some mass "right side" pointing at the "left side"

mass? where did i claim that? and if i didn't claim it, why are you expecting me to provide evidence of it?

So, who the hell is "the right side", in your both sides doing it right out of the gate claim??

Apparently Kramer and Cu4 are all that make up the "the right side" and ....... the vast majority of the MSM, pundits, certain Sheriffs, and Brass are "the left side".  Well, that so accurately represents "both sides" so well, doesn't it           

Well it certainly doesn't change the truthfulness of my statement. Both sides were represented.
Left and right.

 

[Xavier_Onassis]

It matters not one whit whether anyone "pushes back". It is stupid to blame anyone but the guy who shot the gun. He was insane. All assassins are insane, because not one in all of American history ever accomplished any objective by his assassination, unless he had a death wish.

[sirs]

Not some mass "right side" pointing at the "left side"

mass? where did i claim that? and if i didn't claim it, why are you expecting me to provide evidence of it?

So, who the hell is "the right side", in your both sides doing it right out of the gate claim??

Apparently Kramer and Cu4 are all that make up the "the right side" and ....... the vast majority of the MSM, pundits, certain Sheriffs, and Brass are "the left side".  Well, that so accurately represents "both sides" so well, doesn't it           

Well it certainly doesn't change the truthfulness of my statement. Both sides were represented.
Left and right.

 

Because they're so "equal"

[BT]

Because they're so "equal"

Surely you aren't advocating a quota system 

[sirs]

Nope, just providing the all important context & perspective

[BT]

Good thing i never claimed the pointing of fingers would be equal, contextually speaking of course.

That would be you who inserted that strawman into the conversation, as is your custom.

[sirs]

Good thing i never claimed the pointing of fingers would be equal, contextually speaking of course.

Yea, because that's so important to point out that "both sides, right out of the gate...yada, blah, etc.", clearly means 1 side does it far more than the other.

That would be you who inserted that strawman into the conversation, as is your custom.

Well, if we've decided to redefine strawman, as providing context to something so nebulous as not really meaning both as in equivalent, but both as in one side does it more than the other, then guilty as charged

[BT]

I really don't see what the difficulty in understanding that:

It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others.

Means: It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others.

Now if you want to make a post that says something different then by all means do so.

I'm quite happy with the way i wrote mine, its meaning and intent and it is not in your realm to change that meaning or intent, try as you may.

[sirs]

I really don't see what the difficulty in understanding that:

It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others.

Means: It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others.

IMPLIES: both sides are equivalently equal in their pointing of fingers...right out of the gate.  Otherwise, its largely a meaningless point, if 1 side is doing it far more so than the other, but we're supposed to get that out of the claim that "both sides out of the gate yada, yada"

[BT]

I really don't see what the difficulty in understanding that:

It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others.

Means: It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others.

IMPLIES: both sides are equivalently equal in their pointing of fingers...right out of the gate.  Otherwise, its largely a meaningless point, if 1 side is doing it far more so than the other, but we're supposed to get that out of the claim that "both sides out of the gate yada, yada"

If i were to post a statement such as:
During the Viet Nam War, both sides suffered casualties.

Would you believe i meant that the casualties were equal? If so, why?

My statement is true on the face of it. Your reading is not.

And therein lays the problem.

[Christians4LessGvt]

And i still don't see where you got i said that the right should not push back.

Ok...I went back and read all the pages...maybe I assumed too much by my
feeling you were implying that all sides were about equal that everybody should shut up
before we had a chance to even respond to the attacks....i hate one way streets and if
you do too we're on the same page.

[sirs]

I really don't see what the difficulty in understanding that:

It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others.

Means: It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others.

IMPLIES: both sides are equivalently equal in their pointing of fingers...right out of the gate.  Otherwise, its largely a meaningless point, if 1 side is doing it far more so than the other, but we're supposed to get that out of the claim that "both sides out of the gate yada, yada"

If i were to post a statement such as:
During the Viet Nam War, both sides suffered casualties.

Would you believe i meant that the casualties were equal?

No, I'd wonder "why is he posting the obvious?".  "Was their some expectation that one side wouldn't?"  Remember gulf war one, when we hardly suffered any casualties compared to the Iraqis?  THAT would be noteworthy, despite that "both sides suffered casualties". 

Your statement had a clear inferrence, whether it was by design or not, that both sides were equivalantly going after each other, "right from the gate".  Cu4 + Kramer, as conservative as they are, don't equal the public reach that the MSM, pundits like Krugman, and politicians like Clyburn reach.  So yea, your statement might be "technically true", but was poorly clarified

And therein lays the problem.

[sirs]

Your statement had a clear inferrence, whether it was by design or not, that both sides were equivalantly going after each other, "right from the gate".  Cu4 + Kramer, as conservative as they are, don't equal the public reach that the MSM, pundits like Krugman, and politicians like Clyburn reach.  So yea, your statement might be "technically true", but was poorly clarified

And therein lays the problem.

[BT]

Your statement had a clear inferrence, whether it was by design or not, that both sides were equivalantly going after each other, "right from the gate".

My statement said what it said.

If you would like to agree that : "It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others." is a true statement and then post your own statement that though both sides did point fingers those on the left did it more, i would have no problem with that.

But what you did was misrepresent my statement to mean something it did not mean, instead of just posting your own statement.

Learn from this.