...Where was the "obligation"? I referenced specifically those who had fallen off the insult bandwagon, especially as it relates to the level of vitriole being thrown in my direction. You were one of them, that's why your name came up. It was neither "dragged", nor were you obligated to respond. Simple as that
And once again, you had NO reason to bring my name into the matter, since I had been gone for two days and made it clear when I left I wanted nothing more to do with you.
And once again, since it was you and a 2 others providing all the vitriole, I had every good reason, that I've already explained,..... in spades. Not to mention, you had no obligation to respond, and thus continued to have "nothing more to do with me". You read into it, what you wanted to, nothing more
...You weren't making any "plea"...
You're damned right I wasn't. I also wasn't backing off any previous position I had taken, or caught with my hand in a cookie jar, or any of that other crap you kept slinging my way. I posted exactly what Obama said the day after the attack, and that was it, PERIOD. I took no position on it one way or the other.
Actually you did, which again, I've explained..... in spades. Your mileage may vary
...You were dodging a direct question...
Show me please, the forum rule that states I have to answer any question I do not feel like answering?
See....you can't have it both ways. You can't say you answered the question, then turn around and say you have no obligation in answering a question. Of course you don't have to answer it, especially if answering it happens to debunk an original stance you were taking.....that Obama was referencing Benghazy specifically as a Terrorist Act, repeating his words in the Rose Garden, while nicely ignoring everything else he had said, or more importantly didn't say, when HE was asked a question he apparently didn't feel like answering.
Thank you for helping to make my point
I am well aware what I posted and when it was said, and that was my sole intent, to rebut the claim Obama had not referred to it as a terrorist act. That should have made it clear to you, the first time I repeated that, that that was as far as I was willing to go on the issue. You do have a problem letting things go.
And that position was found wanting, when you don't take his comments in a vacuum, and allow the rest of what he said to be said in context, along with what he said immediately after, and even a week after. Apparently you didn't want to have to deal with the forest, and just hung on to one branch of a tree. Great strentgh and focus to do that, I'll grant you that, but context really does help
...You're going to have to point to specifially what I claimed you never said. Both times, if you don't mind...
1. You tried to claim I said Bush lied us into the war in Iraq. I showed you I never said Bush, personally, propogated the lie.
And I said,
I see...I was wrong. That's kind of how it works around here. If a person makes an incorrect assumption, you merely correct him. Nothing nefarious or sinister. If I had continued to claim that despite facts to the contrary, THEN you can make such a claim. That wasn't the case here...next
2. You kept yammering at me as though I had, in fact, taken some sort of position on the comment in the Rose Garden. That was what I asked you to prove, and you went after it saying you would 'meet my mandate' or some such nonsense. Days later, the big reveal, and - nothing. Nothing but a rehash that I refused to answer your question, as is my right. Nothing. Zero. Zip. Nada. A big dud.
That wasn't me saying you said anything. It was me showing how you dodged a question. So, that wasn't the case of me saying you said something you didn't either. Anything else?
By the way, you mentioned that hyper defensive thing again - grind this is your mill:
...But per H's mandate, I'll endeavor to repost those threads that show him where he was in error, along with the hypocrisy of performing precisely that which he claims I'm doing. And I'll do it again without all the 3rd grade cursing and insults[/color]...
...For H: Good god, you are one paranoid uber defensive SOB...
Now, I don't know about where you come from, but most places I've been, SOB stands for son of a bitch.
Yea.....and? I had lost all patience with your and your grammar school insults, H. Yet, that said, I was willing to start us a new, with my sincere intention to request we all do a little better, at least over the Thanksgiving holiday. Then you went apesnot defensive mode with your wreckless rhetorical rant. So I recipricated.....with not even the spelled out word, merely as abbreviation. Did I make any claim, what-so-ever that I wouldn't recipricate? In most places I've been people frequently respond in kind to how they're being treated. I've actually been the one keeping the tone to a moderately civil level
Best I remember, the only two members of this forum I ever called sons of bitches were Kramer and Tee. And far as I’m concerned, they both deserved it.
So, in your world SOB is like....the n word?? Perhaps that's a communication issue, since in mine, there's a whole heap of words far nastier and demeaning than the abbreviation SOB. Maybe we'll need to compare notes on that, some day
As for you, Sirs, you tried and failed miserably.
Oh, the irony
You tend to read things into what people say that just aren't there, or to assign them motives they do not have
We all do, several examples I've shown you doing, as of late
Now, I will once again spell it out for you, and make it perfectly clear. I do not intend to post in this forum again, to you or anyone else, as long as you drop it, meaning leave out any reference to me, by name or otherwise.
I'll endeavor not to mention you by name, any further H, but I will not refrain from noting posts of yours, or anyone for that matter, that tends to demonstrate some duplicity, at least until that perceived duplicity has been clarified. I hope that's spelled out as well enough, and that we can now claim the issue dropped
