“Whatever”
Boy, that’s one debate trick I learned always comes from someone that just can’t admit they were wrong. Move the goalpost! Liberals are schooled in that method.
Regardless of the merits or the issue of spending, the fact that Delay did indeed say it just proves you were wrong. No big deal.
Just admit it and then discuss the context. But, frankly, there is always fat in government to cut. Delay, like so many, who say there isn’t is so more concerned with process than reality. They live in vaunted worlds of this program versus that program and this must be funded and never changed versus this needs to be reformed ad nauseum.
Here’s your debate trick. Accuse your opponent of exactly what you did - moving the goalpost. You’ve are the one who changed the question up for discussion!
The original debate was about false accusations leveled by a Tom DeLay hater, accusing Majority Whip Delay of being a crook, and he is not. There was no personal profiteering by Tom DeLay. I know, I know, some people claim accepting a paycheck, pension plan, travel and buying a house to live in while in session by to be corruption, but please let’s not go there.
Changing the question to whether or not Tom DeLay should even have participated in the only system that exists in Washington, and whether or not he as a republican should have opposed the Bush-Cheney administration of our big-government during the middle-east wars and economic recovery of the post 911 time period is another question entirely.
If you go back to the original start of the the thread I simply corrected in sequence the lies of Terry Mross, and then later KantianBurke who posted a few links to mainstream media “news” stories in his attempt to bolster the Mross smears.
Oh, yes, the ad hominem fallacy. Call your a opponent a liberal. That’s really helps prove you case. Not!