Originally Posted By alexbook >>I mean't exactly what I said and did in post #81.<< Really? What was that?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Sure. I'm the only one who sees things through the prism of ideology. You never do. I don't think so.> I never said you were the only one who did. Only pointing out that you were doing so in this instance.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I never said you were the only one who did. Only pointing out that you were doing so in this instance.> And so are you. So what?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Really not to the same degree as you though. Really. Consider that quite a few people here said that Obama was speaking metaphorically. And pretty obviously he was - that makes seeing his speech as metaphorical more likely to be an objective view. You are the only one, however, to try to claim that Romney was making a "joke." In fact, others have said (in one way or another), "give me a break, he wasn't doing that." That would make your reading of it as a joke more likely to be skewed by ideology.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Really not to the same degree as you though. Really.> I disagree. <Consider that quite a few people here said that Obama was speaking metaphorically.> Another faulty appeal to authority. Just because more posters here lean left than right does not make their views more correct than mine.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Really not to the same degree as you though. Really.>> <I disagree.> There's a shocker. <<Consider that quite a few people here said that Obama was speaking metaphorically.>> <Another faulty appeal to authority. Just because more posters here lean left than right does not make their views more correct than mine.> It wasn't just lefties. Also, your leaving out the part of his quote that made it more obvious was inherently dishonest and you were called on that too.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Also, your leaving out the part of his quote that made it more obvious was inherently dishonest and you were called on that too.<< He meant it as a joke.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Also, your leaving out the part of his quote that made it more obvious was inherently dishonest and you were called on that too.> I didn't leave anything out. I quoted the parts that were relevant.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 You left out the parts that made it clear he was speaking metaphorically. That's not only relevant, it's key. To leave them out omits context and makes it appear he meant his words differently than he meant them. In other words, inherently dishonest. Congratulations.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I didn't leave anything out. I quoted the parts that were relevant.<< LMAO! "I didn't leave anything out. Just what would prove I was dead wrong." Good times.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You left out the parts that made it clear he was speaking metaphorically.> Which ones were those?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh So the whole speech made clear that he was speaking metaphorically, even though some people didn't get that clearly. And by not quoting the whole speech, I was somehow inherently dishonest. What a load.
Originally Posted By jonvn No. By quoting it out of context and implying it said something other than it did makes you dishonest.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <By quoting it out of context and implying it said something other than it did makes you dishonest.> I didn't quote it out of context or imply it said something other than it did.
Originally Posted By jonvn OK, sure. Everyone here knows precisely what sort of behavior you engage in, so there is no point in belaboring it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Omitting a large part of it DOES take it out of context. That's axiomatic. And you said, flat out, "Obama claimed that he owed his existence to the march from Selma, Al - that if it hadn't been for that march, his parents wouldn't have gotten together." That's not what he claimed at all, and when you read the whole quote, that's clear. Your were in fact dishonest.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Omitting a large part of it DOES take it out of context. That's axiomatic.> Right. I'll remember that whenever you quote someone and don't include ALL of their remarks. <And you said, flat out, "Obama claimed that he owed his existence to the march from Selma, Al - that if it hadn't been for that march, his parents wouldn't have gotten together." That's not what he claimed at all, and when you read the whole quote, that's clear.> One, I didn't say that "flat out". As I mentioned before, I put the word "lied" in quotation marks, in my first two posts on the subject. When you asked for more information, I passed on an accusation I had heard. I did not mean to imply I believed it. That said, I do not believe it was all that clear that he did not mean what I reported. There was no intent to deceive on my part. I also do not believe there was any intent to deceive on Gov Romney's part, or on Sen Obama's part.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I also do not believe there was any intent to deceive on Gov Romney's part<< How about we call it "padding his hunting resume"?
