<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Solo</b></i>
Fred,
As you, I am no longer interested in arguing semantics. Your absolutist delineator seems not as certain as you deceptively portray it. I find it amusing that when someone mentions "I'd be worried about whether Obama will take your guns" and people stomp on that comment, then they cry victim. You see Fred, if nobody challenges that comment, however you intended it to be, people will believe it to be true. We are not the only ones reading this message board. Up until the election, some people at my job still thought Obama was a Manchurian candidate planted by Al-Qaeada. Now Fred, by repeating the same old lie that you had not brought it up, time, and time again, post after post, doesn't establish it as fact, it just remains a repeated lie. Please don't use the old tired out argument of "I have been here longer then you...therefore." As a mask for any deceptive, revisionist, hyperbolic activity. I'm not even going to get into why that doesn't matter the least. But I don't think I should be cast as a villain for attempting to correct what I deem as slander; as saying something about someone that is false is slander. When people read that comment, it might through up all these red flags in their heads. "So Obama wants to take our guns?" I'm sorry, but that kind of fear-mongering, emotional syntax is why your party lost big time in the elections. Now it's a big step for apologizing about not clarifying your statement, because we are not face to face here, and you might mean it one way, and it gets put through a meatgrinder, which is what you claim happened here...
...This thread isn't about who gets the last word, it's about speaking out against something you see as wrong. None of us will obviously budge in our stance about this inconsequential, issue. I have properly explained why I use that name with the GOP, and why the middle name of the Pres when used as a lever, invokes fear. I return to work tomorrow, so I will not have as much time to post...</end quote></div>
So, from what all you're saying in the quote up above, then this quote below:
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Solo</b></i>
The truth of the matter is that Donald Duck Rumsfeld ordered the torture tactics, George Bush authorized them, Dickhead Cheney defended the torture tactics, and Alberto Gonzalez lied and tried desperately to make them look legal... </end quote></div>
is no different than this quote:
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>65rosessamurai</b></i>
But I'd worry about whether Obama's gonna take your Gun away... </end quote></div>
I just wanted clarification, to insure whether I'm as stupid as you are portraying me to be....since I find your replies to contradict my meaning.
I only reply to this because of how you worded your reply which I quoted above and I see it as you had called me out by attacking my credibility, as well as making incorrect acusations.
I'll argue when, as you call it, the "semantics" looks illogical to me (such as the manipulation of my wording) in an inconsequential issue in which you started.
id est, the use of my quote "I've been here longer than you" was in reference to how your wording of a reply was taken as an attack on my credibility here, the quote, "I've been here longer than you", had nothing to do with the comment regarding gun control. And, therefore, if or when someone is going to attack someone else's character, it will more than likely incur a response of some sort.
And, your added "Scenario" does not have any comparison to what really goes on..like the "Diner scenario". With that, you still didn't reply to my direct questions in this entire thread, yet I've given mine, which you instead had chosen to blatantly criticize.
Example to your criticizm towards me; you didn't yeild to my comment regarding your derrogative word refering to "All Republicans" until someone else had also commented about the same thing.
Have a Nice Day.