What are you talking about? Here is what I posted, specifically refuting the coup portion of Satin Doll’s comments... You need to stop with the name calling... I refuted what she said about the coup... black and white, see below:
A few weeks ago Santorum claimed he was “the go to guy” for the coup against Gingrich, back in the 90s. What a shocking thing for a ‘moral’ person to claim, boasting of his own deceit!
go-to-guy - accurate.
in the senate - accurate.
not a coup; so coup - inaccurate.
Sanctimonium has many times called himself the go-to-guy in the Senate, he’s almost made it a campaign theme - I am the stable one, the dependable one, why, I was the go-to-guy in the Senate, the one people came to when they needed to get things done. I am sure you have heard him. She said he was the go-to-guy in the coup. And that was incorrect, which is what I said:
“Actually, the term “go-to-guy” is accurate, and it was in the Senate, but not the coup.”
“Actually, the term “go-to-guy” is accurate, and it was in the Senate, but not the coup.”
That's not really a coherent statement since a phrase taken out of context is neither accurate nor inaccurate. Only a full statement can be termed one or the other. That's what made that confusing. All I had to go by was the fact that you were responding in reference to someone else's post and what you said seemed to be a contradiction in terms.