Oh, I get it now. When you say that immigration is on ONE straw out of many that "broke the camel's back" when it comes to Bush's record...... it is out of line for anyone to ask you what the other "straws" were. You don't have to answer such questions. It is up to others to "Consult" the "recorded record"?.
Nice use of selective quoting. Here, let me fill it in for you:
- "Both were meant to suggest you weren't paying attention to the deBaTe, because if you had been, you wouldn't have had to ask [As now proven and conceded by you]. If in fact you were not paying attention to the arguments because you were too busy concocting ways to shift it elsewhere,[Like the failed attempt to which I am now responding] it is incumbent upon you to go back and consult the recorded record [You may mock this and laugh, but you are probably beginning to wish you had about now]. It is not incumbent upon me to repeat myself and other[s] ad nauseum, until such time that you decide to let the statements sink in and choose to address them [Which you started to do, but couldn't help yourself but to jump back into the BS].
The part you choose to chop out was my justification for not repeating myself, or others. Of course, you failed to address that part of the argument, which became the critical point in our exchange. I can only conclude that you had no answer, so chose instead to focus on shifting the nature of my argument by only presenting the conclusion and criticizing it, rather than addressing the justification for the conclusion.
Nevertheless, I gave you your "just one," again." [The final line of the post, all by itself]
Are you trying to make me laugh on purpose or what? If you don't have an answer just admit it. - Jorge
Heh.. That part is the humorous part Jorge. At this point, you alread KNEW that I gave you an answer, yet you reverted right back to pretending I didn't. Be honest now, are you trying a Dem strategy - repeat a lie long enough and it will become truth?
Sorry if my posts are "long and boring," but when arguing with somebody that employs Clintonion selective memory, Dem style word-twisting and generally hides from the issues, one has to be careful to lay it all out on the table.
Unfortunately, none of us will ever know if you do this intentionally, or out of basic intellectual laziness. Anybody else reading gets to see the full exchange. Hard to believe anybody would put up with this much text, but I at least get some satisfaction out of it!
Oh I get it. I forgot to address the part of the argument which became critical to the shifting nature of the justification of the conclusion because it was not the focus of the convoluted and entangled argument you were presenting that I was criticizing.