“Once again, it isn’t just ‘this instance’ with you.
Every instance is the wrong instance to you.”
You’re cherry-picking to demonstrate what, exactly? That my having been anti-birther in the past undercuts my anti-birther stand now. Why? Because...um...I’m posing as if this was an isolated incident, whereas all along I’ve been anti-birther. As if, knowing you would be more willing to listen to a fella who came up to you humbly and said, “Excuse me, sir, I love you birthers and hope you nail Obama and everything, but in this particular case on this particular day I have one little pecadillo I’d like to discuss...” would get me further.
Nice try. There was no such pretence. See my original post, in which I say clearly, openly, without “burying the lead”: “You birthers really, really have to stop pretending everything’s a smoking gun.” Get that? I said “everything,” not merely “in this instance.” It’s right there in the original post. Check it out.
Not that it’ll matter. For some strange reason according to troll hunter logic the fact that someone has been against you in the past is a shield against them being against you now, consistency is proof of disengenuousness, and disagreeing with someone is proof that you have been compromised or are only pretending to disagree for the purpose of other, sinister ends.
The problem with that, as Second Amendment supporters ultimately found out, is that every single "mistake" wound up pointing in the same general direction.
By the way, so that you know your chicanery doesn’t go unnoticed, let us look at the context of my “in this instance” to see whether you’re on to something about me covering up how “every instance is the wrong instance to [me].” I was saying:
“But you’ve just admitted it’d be okay to go after DUmmies, when they’re wrong—as in this instance I think birthers are wrong for overplaying their hand.”
Here I’m comparing to specific instances: one in which you think DUmmies are wrong, another in which I think you are wrong, in order to argue that it’s okay for both of us—me and you—to go after others when we think they are wrong. Was the above phrased so as to make you think I’ve only thought you were wrong once? No. It’s not even at issue, as I’ve agreed to it several times and never pretended otherwise.
Most importantly, as shown, I charged birthers with pretending everything’s a smoking gun in the original post. So what are you on about, again? Oh, right, the words “in this instance” appeared at some point, and as such it means I’m a liar for presenting myself as something other than a habitual anti-birther. This is significant because...um...to be a habitual anti-birther is wrong. Because it makes you a troll, somehow.
That’s not the conclusion to be drawn, to anyone who didn’t fail reading comphrehension, from an honest reading of my “in this instance” post.