Sorry for the tardiness. I do have a life outside the saloon. Oh, and welcome back B. and per Plane's request, I tryed to keep from doing a bunch of reposting of previous threads, but the jist would be located in the "Would have made a Difference" thread
No one, including H, has any obligation to post or respond to anything I say/type.
Nor do you have any obligation to drag my name into any discussion, given that I made it perfectly clear I was finished with you.
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
That said, if/when they do, I should have an absolute right to defend myself when completely bogus claims are being made about me.
Okay, let's talk bogus claims. Your bogus claims -
1. That I was making some sort of plea when there was none to be made and no reason for me to do so.
You weren't making any "plea". You were dodging a direct question, which I discriptively compared it to pleading the 5th. You see, you posted what Obama said, AT THE TIME of the Rose Garden, and kept repeating that. I made it clear that his statements in the Rose Garden weren't at issue, meaning yes, he did say them, so your repeating them as an answer was pretty pointless. As Plane helped reference, that taken those comments, and those comments alone, minus anything and everything else said by him, and his minions, if you skewed your mind just enough, you might be able to rationalize he was referring to acts of terror specifically to Benghazi. It makes no sense, in the context he made those statements, but supporters of Obama could latch onto it.
The problem is what he said immediately after the Rose Garden, on 60 minutes, and even a week later on the show the View, all of those linked in the thread in question. In all those instances he wasn't just giving a speech, he was answering direct questions. He was asked specifically if Benghazi was a terrorist attack, he couldn't/didn't/wouldn't answer "yes". He merely deflected into "there's an ongoing investigation", "we really don't know what happened", and "we will bring those who did this to justice". THAT's the context I kept repeating my question to you about, and instead of using that objective little brain of yours, you kept reposting his Rose Garden comments
That's what you kept dodging, and that's what I called you on, as it relates to pleading the 5th.
3. Putting words into my mouth, twice, that I was able to show I had never said.
You're going to have to point to specifially what I claimed you never said. Both times, if you don't mind
And I walked away from that entire discussion and made it very clear I wanted nothing else to do with you, and had not posted again at all until you posted your 'olive branch' talking about me as though I was some cur dog out to do nothing but stir up trouble. Well, you got it.
No, I didn't get anything of the sort, since that was never my intention. You read into it, what you wanted to.
You have the ability H, to be an excellent debater, but to be bluntly honest, minus all the 3rd grade name calling you seem to embrace, you have a serious hyper defensive complex. You, and to a certain extent Bt, have a knack for rhetoric just vague enough to mean anything you want, at any given time. Bt's latest example on the sincerity of my olive branch. He should either think it is, or think it isn't, unless there's not enough associated comments to come to either conclusion. I've given enough verbage such that decision could be deduced, but an answer to that remained illusive as when I thought he had, he claimed that my deduction of that was "putting words in his mouth". Yet, when conceding that well, I guess he didn't, even that wasn't apparently correct.
Point being, when you make references, others can make assumptions based on it. We all do it. If we make the wrong assumption(s), one simply references how the other is in error, kinda like this ongoing ridiculous notion that my olive branch thread was somehow laced with provocative dynamite. What they shouldn't do is keep repeating the same answer that was never at issue, then have a major defensive fit. Then you top it off by thinking that my messages to Bt was some nefarious effort to get you kicked out......good gravy. Just because you had "put your foot down and wanted nothing more to do with me", doesn't negate that the request was directed at those who had a consistent knack of throwing all sorts of derogatory bombs, in my direction. So, I was hoping, in the spirit of the Thanksgiving holiday, we could all try to do a little better.
I'm not out to get you....or anyone. I will go after rhetoric that I perceive as trying to have things both ways. If you happen to be the source of the rhetoric, it's not personal. It's a debate forum. Your positions are going to be challenged, especially when they appear to be either contradictory or even hypocritical. You're a smart fella, you can handle it
I intend to go on defending myself. Your call.
As will I, especially when someone repeatedly & erroneously keeps accusing me of something nefarious, when it was 180degrees not so. You read into it, what you wanted to, H. Pure & simple.
Minus the verbosity, how'd I do Plane?
