AZ Congresswomen Shot, betcha a Lib did it!

[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".

My statement said what it said.

Yep, it <It is not surprising that both sides out of the gate were wanting to point their fingers at the others.> certainly did......in full context, still minus any clarification.  Might as well claim that the sun rises then sets.  It's technically accurate....and just as inciteful as your claim, apparently

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 (exponentially) more, i would have no problem with that.

I wonder why you couldn't have.  That would have been precisely the clarification that was asked for in request #1

 

Learn from this.

Oh, the irony

[BT]

Perhaps you can link to the post where you asked for clarification of my sentence.

[sirs]

Inquired as to some support to your claim,  first, given the initial equivalent inferrence being applied, and when it wasn't forthcoming, advocated some clarification on your part, which never materialized, until this recent indirect effort to push that it was apparently my job to clarify your claim

I think not

[BT]

Inquired as to some support to your claim,  first, given the initial equivalent inferrence being applied, and when it wasn't forthcoming, advocated some clarification on your part, which never materialized, until this recent indirect effort to push that it was apparently my job to clarify your claim

I think not

"Support to your claim"
I answered that question. Kramer and CU4 (via his link to american thinker)

"advocated some clarification"
oh

Your claim appeared to cast a huge accusatory net at both "sides" claiming the other side prompted this act.

was a question? Where was the question mark?
Seems like you were telling me what you read, not asking what i wrote.

"my job to clarify your claim"
Ask and you shall receive. Key word ask.

[sirs]

Wrong again.......timeline issues I suppose.  You made a claim.  I inquired based on that pretty transparent inferrence of the claim.  Now, if you perceived it to be the wrong, YOUR JOB was to CLARIFY yourself.  It was not mine, and you could have done that immediately, vs this "technically true" defense. 

I doubt anyone will lay claim that NO ONE from the right pointed any fingers at the left, including messers Cu4 and Kramer, so your fixation with both sides is kinda moot.  It's like your reference to casualties in the Vietnam War.  Who's arguing that NO ONE from the right side would be pointing fingers at the left?  The issue is perspective. 

You prompted a statement, that on its face, clearly inferred some equivalent pointing of fingers.  When that was questioned, it was on your shoulders to clairify the ominous 1 sidedness to the initial 'both sides did it claim', vs trying to stick with a technincal moot truth. 

[BT]

One last time.

I am responsible for what i write.

You are responsible for what you read into what i write.


It's like you are arguing that SCOTUS justices that take the view that the constitution is a living breathing document have the correct view because as long as they can rationalize an inference then it really doesn't matter what the authors wrote.

And surely you are arguing that are you?

Man up. You inferred incorrectly, as I told you numerous times.

[sirs]

One last time.

I am responsible for what i write.

You are responsible for what you read into what i write.

And equally, 1 last time, you are responsible for CLARIFYING YOURSELF, if you note some perceived incorrect POV that someone read into what you wrote.  You chose not to, even going so far as requiring me to do it for you.  Sorry, that wasn't going to happen

[BT]

And equally, 1 last time, you are responsible for CLARIFYING YOURSELF, if you note some perceived incorrect POV that someone read into what you wrote.  You chose not to, even going so far as requiring me to do it for you.  Sorry, that wasn't going to happen

If asked.

It is not my job to clean up after your faulty assumptions.

That could be a never ending task. And frankly i just don't have the desire to give your strawmen a brain.

[sirs]

Apparently it wasn't the last time.  So much for learning from this, especially with the non-existant desperate strawman tact.  What's that ol saying, throw everything against the wall and see what sticks?       

[BT]

Apparently it wasn't the last time.  So much for learning from this, especially with the non-existant desperate strawman tact.  What's that ol saying, throw everything against the wall and see what sticks?       

What sticks is that you inferred incorrectly and don't have the stones to admit it.

Learn from that.

[sirs]

LOL......right, that was it.

[BT]

ah at last

agreement

[sirs]

Yea, I had to laugh at that too

[Plane]

To the attn : BT
From: PT

  Dear  Sir,
      Do you consider one political party or faction more unfair or more opportunist than the other in the case of exploiting events that might be used in the manner of demagogues? Perhaps just slightly?



To the attn : Sirs
From: PT


    Dear Sirs,
           Do you consider one political faction completely innocent of dirty tricks and free of dirty tricksters?

[sirs]

To the attn : Sirs
From: PT
Dear Sirs, Do you consider one political faction completely innocent of dirty tricks and free of dirty tricksters?

Absolutely not.  The fact I'm an Independent and not connected to one political faction is one of the reasons for such.  The fact I can & do bash any political faction is another testament to the answer to your question.