So basically you confess that you are a retard since you just got done arguing that Meadow's position was complete repeal from the start ("dur dur dur there was agreement on replacing, only repealing, even though they were negotiating on the farking bill, which would mean, if my retarded theory is correct, that they were advancing changes to fix a bill that they had no intention on voting for even if all the fixes were made"), and now you are going to argue that they don't support "repeal only," the exact position you advocated for earlier in this thread, based on your own reading of this article.
I already know what you're going to say though. You're going to argue, like the master logician that you are, that the paraphrased part of his statements was not a direct quotation, and then, having made this discovery, you will explain that the entire weight of his statements is completely reconcilable with the idea that he supported REPLACEMENT from the start.
God help me!
Now answer the question that I asked you, paranoid retard. You made a claim that Meadows was lying. A key part of your claim, is that you think that Meadows, up until "now", claimed to be for repeal-only.
I'll now ask you the question for a second time, because once is not enough for a retard such as yourself.
Where is Meadows claiming that they always supported repeal only, up until "now"?