Posturing as Rescuers...Uncle Sam's Day of Reckoning is At Hand

[sirs]

Examples were this thread specifically.  The direct side by side comparison of your rhetoric vs McCain's.  The transparent double standard you hold over anyone that you don't agree with.  Your overt ignoring of them being provided isn't my fault, and trying to tell others that they never were presented, when they can read it for themselves, only serves to undermine your accusations, all the more.

By all means, continue

[Plane]

<<Seems that alot of us knew what McCain was talking about Plane.  Why is it so difficult for so many on the left to not lie about it though??>>

Yes, of course.  "A lot" of you just knew that when McCain said "The fundamentals of our economy are strong" he REALLY was saying "The American worker is strong."  You knew that was what he meant because it was such an obvious meaning to take from his words.

Not only are you full of shit, but I would venture to say not one in a hundred people not already fiercely committed to McCain would draw that meaning from those words.  Nobody will believe McCain's explanation of those words and nobody will believe you when you try to explain the "real meaning" of those words.  It is just not believable.

Sigh

It was in CODE, MT , of course it didn't mean what it sounded like it ment.

[Michael Tee]

<<The transparent double standard you hold over anyone that you don't agree with.  Your overt ignoring of them being provided isn't my fault, and trying to tell others that they never were presented, when they can read it for themselves, only serves to undermine your accusations, all the more.>>

My remarks were obviously sarcastic and needed no further exposition.  An exposition was provided, not because it was necessary, but to expose your lies that my statement was not intended as sarcasm when it all too obviously was.

McCain's remark was clear on its face and needed no further exposition.  McCain proceeded to provide further exposition, not to reinforce the original meaning of his statement, but to give it a totally different meaning.  The problem with his further exposition was that it was simply unbelievable.

Your alleged "double standard" consists of taking MY exposition (which was purely gratuitous and given in support of the original meaning which nobody but you pretended not to understand) and then EQUATING it with McCain's exposition, which was patently false on its face, attempting to give a totally new meaning to a sentence with an obviously different meaning.

You claimed a double standard existed since I asked for acceptance of a gratuitous and wholly plausible exposition NOT seeking to change the obvious meaning of my statment, and compared that demand for acceptance with my ridicule of a desperately necessary, non-gratuitous and implausible exposition whose objective was to give a totally new meaning to a clear and intelligible statement having a perfectly clear but very different meaning of its own without need of further exposition.

[sirs]

<<The transparent double standard you hold over anyone that you don't agree with.  Your overt ignoring of them being provided isn't my fault, and trying to tell others that they never were presented, when they can read it for themselves, only serves to undermine your accusations, all the more.>>

My remarks were obviously sarcastic and needed no further exposition

NO, they weren't.  THAT's the issue.  You had to clarify your position.  You think, on God's green earth, McCain would have been under the belief that all was perfectly well with the economy, when he himself was raising the alarms regarding the housing debacle and the problems it posed on both the economy and the tax payer??  Of course YOU do, because that way you can proclaim how disconnected he is when he references something more accurate, specifically to the economy a week later.  His clarifications on his prior statement are to be ignored....which we should then do with you apparently. 

Unless of course we're to support your double standard & embrace your hypocrisy

[Michael Tee]

<<You had to clarify your position.  >>

Sure - - but only for one person: you, because you pretended not to get the sarcasm.

<<You think, on God's green earth, McCain would have been under the belief that all was perfectly well with the economy, when he himself was raising the alarms regarding the housing debacle and the problems it posed on both the economy and the tax payer?? >>

That was two years ago.  Besides, he was probably lying anyway.  Saying anything to defend the economy because of the perception (true enough as it turned out) that a bad economy would hurt him more than Obama.

You know what I just realized, sirs?  This debate between us is pointless.  The voters will either think as I do - - that the statement revealed McCain as foolish and out of touch, or they will believe as you claim you do, that he was really referring in that statement to the American worker.  I am 100% convinced that 99% of the voters will see his statement as I see it, and I guess you are 100% convinced of the opposite.

There is nothing to add.

[sirs]

There is nothing to add.

Boy, ain't that the truth