“You said I was attacking you when I never did any such thing, or even came close. It was a false charge.”
You went after the person, not the argument, which is what ‘ad-hominem’ means. I had already conceded that ‘attack’ may have been too strong, though it now seems vindicated.
There’s no evidence for SatinDoll’s claim that Judge Gonzalez dismissed Donofrio’s petition in exchange for a promotion. The president doesn’t even select bankruptcy court judges, as I cited.
So again, or rather, still, you go ad-hominem. What about the argument? On what point was I wrong? Do you think the president selects bankruptcy judges? Is there evidence of this exchange of a dismissal for a promotion? Do you think accusing a judge of doing that is not a serious charge? Do you think making a serious charge without evidence is not false witness? Do you think false witness comports with conservative values?
You are obsessed w arguing. I wasn’t arguing w you at all. I was asking a question. You are either really thick, purposefully misunderstanding, or else so obsessed w arguing you see arguments where none exist. I did not go after you. Do I have to type that a hundred times for it to penetrate? I asked you an honest, straightforward question. You freaked out. What kind of person freaks when they are asked, ‘have you ever posted critically about Obama?’? It is very bizarre that you went wild over such a simple question, and you still, to this minute, hurl false accusations about it. Something’s wrong somewhere Blade, and that is just a fact, not an attack or whatever you choose to call it this time.