(02-07-2020 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 09:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 06:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-07-2020 03:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 09:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  McConnell wields a ton of power to influence public perception, which in that case was VERY important. No question that the Obama admin had the ability to make a call, but don’t act like Mitch was powerless or not a significant player in that game. Bipartisan support was paramount, per that report.

I am not saying 'Mitch was powerless' --- please do tell where I say that....

No doubt there is a 'cheerleader' aspect to a response.

But, the power to effectuate the NatSec response was (and still is) *solely* the province of the Executive. A power that you grossly overlook when you try and assign 'equal' blame here.

I mean, you have had your panties in a wad for 3 years on how terrible the turtle was here; all without bothering to note that somehow Obama managed to absolutely underplay a coordinated NatSec sector response to this, *and* at the same fing time grossly overplayed the response (i.e. the apparent perjury in the General Flynn case, the gross incompetence in promoting a National Enquirer level paid political piece to a cornerstone of an investigative witch hunt, *and* a pattern of lying to the FISA court to continue that course.

Yep, but Mitch is equally at fault in your book..... lolz....

If you’re gonna start a response with “tell me where I said that,” then you probably shouldn’t proceed to do the exact same thing to the person youre responding to.

You’re centering your entire counter argument on me saying that McConnell was equally at fault...

Im not the one standing up and yelling 'what about' as you just did.

Nor am I the one feeling the absolute urgency to hightlight "MITCH DID IT TOO", again, as you just did.

And, more telling, when I noted previously that perhaps "not in anywhere near equal amounts or scope", again you had the urgency to reiterate to us again how important the Turtle was in his bad actions.

I guess you missed, at the very least, your apparent vigorous defense against the "but not in anywhere near equal amounts or scope" argument. One might take that an indication of what I just said, that is, at least to many people who have the ability to read.

So now, after your 'where did I say it' I take it you now fully agree and are absolutely comfortable with "but not in anywhere near equal amounts or scope" statement I made earlier, and all your comments since then are rhetorical flourishes apparently made for really no reason at all?

Glad we apparently agree on that scope. If so I dont, know why you continued after it like a dog with a chew rope.

Yes, I am the one who is going after it like a dog with a chew rope.

You just wrote how many words in this response, which basically amounts to you trying to avoid admitting how hilariously hypocritical you were.

Getting back to the original point:

Great, as noted above --- glad to know that your spirited defense contra to "but not in anywhere near equal amounts or scope" was a bunch of arm flapping and that you really do agree with my original statement. Despite your comments to the opposite position of it.

I guess only stupid people look at an opposition to a words of a particular statement to indicate an opposition to that particular statement. Thank goodness for the 'nuance' that you bring to this.