Rush:Now, it starts out, Sargent wants to know if I agree that what Eric Cantor said on Sunday with George Stephanopoulos was a repudiation of my notion that I want President Obama to fail; and I wrote back and I said, "You've got it wrong. What you need to do is check the misleading information on the ABC website." I said, "Check the show transcript against what George Stephanopoulos posted on his website and you'll see that on the show itself George did not define my remarks as they appear on the website. Cantor actually agreed with me in his full answer, re: policy." So, in other words, the website for This Week with George Stephanopoulos is where everybody got the news that Eric Cantor had "repudiated" me, and they put the transcript of the show on the website up inaccurately. The transcript of the show leaves out all of the Rush qualifiers about hoping to fail. Cantor's answer was essentially, policy-wise, to agree with me. So I wrote him back I sent him the transcripts. I sent him the website, what it was reported, and the transcript of the show, and I asked him to add this. You are nitpicking now.
LOL, nitpicking?
I don't think that pointing out that Cantor was taken out of context by the poster is nitpicking.
Apparently it is your style to think so.
BTW, the poster went on to say..."Cantor said a while[sic] lot of nothing". Rush contradicts that by saying, "Cantor actually agreed with me in his full answer, re: policy."
If one reads the the ABC News transcript one will see that Rush is correct and the poster was incorrect.
Hay it's your style, don't ever change.
You're not a bad guy, you just take yourself too seriously
: > )