Re: Joe
mysteryman wrote:I 100% admit that I misinterpreted the facts.
However, that does not change the facts.
Unless you are saying that everyone that makes a mistake interpreting facts means the facts are wrong.
If thats your view, that would mean that a child thinking that 2+2=5 means that the fact that 2+2=4 is wrong.
2+2=5 isn't an
interpretation of 2+2=4, it's a statement of fact, and it's wrong.
mysteryman wrote:No point, just showing how she voted.
The facts are correct, you are free to infer anything you want from them.
That, of course, is pure bullshit. You were attempting to make a point that Sen. Clinton is a hypocrite, because she allegedly spoke out in favor of issues that she then voted against in the senate. Now that it is clear those "facts" that you posted did not support your point, you suddenly discover that you didn't have a point after all.
mysteryman wrote:Wrong, I was responding to your words, which were...
[quote]A wise policy, but I was concerned that some unsuspecting reader might have thought that, with all of those links, mysteryman had accidentally stumbled upon some facts.
Now, if you choose to claim that you didnt say them or that you werent responding to what I posted, even though your response was camouflaged as a snide response to BBB, thats your choice.
But you cannot dent your words.
I posted FACTS, so do you still want to claim I "accidently stumbled" onto them?
If you want to continue to say that, I will be very happy to hit you with all the facts you want.[/color][/quote]
Let's review:
In post 2996270, you responded to
BBB by posting the "facts" about Sen. Clinton's voting record.
In post 2996302, I responded to your post by going over every one of the "facts" and showing that, by and large, they weren't what you represented them to be.
In post 2996402, I responded to
BBB with the quotation that you have pasted above.
After that, you challenged me to "show all of us exactly what was in my post that was not a FACT!!!" I did that in post 2998362.
Now, in post 2998384 you said that, "to prove that joe is a complete idiot, I posted the FACTS from her own voting record"
in response to my post 2996402. But clearly that couldn't be true, because that "fact" post (2996270) preceded my post by an hour. You were actually trying to prove that
BBB was an idiot, not me. You didn't succeed in that, either, but you should at least get the chronology correct.
