Victor,
First, you stated:
"...you fail to paint the picture accurately when you try to claim that the entire thing was democrats trying to paint conservatives... as anti-women"

Then when I tell you that the liberals DID paint conservatives as anti-women, you counter with:

"Of course they did. When the opponent manages to say sh$t that can alienate 50% of the voter population, you'd be an absolute idiot not to try capitalizing on it. I see nothing wrong with keeping these blunders in the forefront, it's good tactics and both sides are perfectly fine doing it."


so which part of the picture did I paint inaccurately?


This isn't the rugby locker room. You can't have it both ways...
🇨🇮

tailgater wrote:

The critical word is "entirely"

Your entire argument is based on omission (which I stated at the beginning). As in, you only are attributing action to the evil democrats, and try to paint the republicans as poor passive victims in this "anti-women shaming".

I'm trying to bring some sanity to the arguments, to point out that the truth (as always) is really somewhere in the middle.

victor809 wrote:

Huh?
It was entirely the liberals who painted the republicans as anti-women.

The GOP did not paint themselves as such.

What's your point?

tailgater wrote:

What I really find amazing about this entire thing is the vitriol and hate some people/groups have for this woman.

Seriously....

I can fully understand being ideologically opposed to giving anyone anything at all. But to hate someone so much simply because they are willing to testify that "Yes, if you give me something, that will make my life easier." That's really the extent of what she was asked to do.

For some reason what should have been a sane discussion turned into vivid descriptions of what a bunch of old men imagine her sex life to be.

victor809 wrote:

Don't be obtuse, that becomes irritating in this medium.

"fail to paint the picture accurately when you try to claim that the entire thing was democrats trying to paint conservatives"

entire. As in there is more to the story than "liberals painting the republicans as anti-women".

As in you were purposely omitting a number of other things that occurred in the timeline.

As in you were "lying by omission".

victor809 wrote:

There is nothing sane about expecting (and getting) insurance to cover contraception, and to then consider it a "right".

It's difficult to therefore initiate a sane discussion when the premise is insane.

And the sanity if further buried when it's reported that republicans wanted to "Take away a woman's right to contraceptives".

This is/was the message pushed by the left, and bought hook line and sinker by the same brain-trust that voted for Obama.



Besides, it's not vitriol when it's true.

😟

tailgater wrote:

As in you were "lying by omission".

victor809 wrote:

There is nothing sane about expecting (and getting) insurance to cover contraception, and to then consider it a "right".

It's difficult to therefore initiate a sane discussion when the premise is insane.

And the sanity if further buried when it's reported that republicans wanted to "Take away a woman's right to contraceptives".

This is/was the message pushed by the left, and bought hook line and sinker by the same brain-trust that voted for Obama.



Besides, it's not vitriol when it's true.

😟

tailgater wrote:

No. Actually I wasn't.

I don't claim the GOP wouldn't jump on a similar open door. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about Fluke and her insane perspective that is embraced by the left. And then extrapoloted out to the extreme.

You call me obtuse and claim I'm ommitting something on purpose, yet you've been unable to state exactly what that is.

tailgater wrote:

I don't know her.
But as a rule, I don't like those who feel entitled to things. As such, I guess you're probably spot on.

As for angst and venom?
Really? Because I used one strongly negative term?
Word of advice: Don't sit next to me at a football game.
My language may be only PG rated, but I use a bunch of negative terms and also allude to the oppositions rugby-like preferences at times.
You'd pull your hair out.

tailgater wrote:

I was jealous of Brewha.

ZRX1200 wrote:

For the record, I think the Subway tuna rocks.
And DMV’s dietary choices do not surprise me.







Btw - what is the recipe for Holy Crap? Do you take regular fresh crap and cook the Hell out of it?
Oh, well . . .bon appétit!

Brewha wrote:

Yo...moron...I said I'd RATHER eat Holy crap...IDK, maybe from the Pope than eat a tuna melt from Subway. Then you turned it into me actually eating it...=d> ...thanks for being a real douchebag ****hole.

DrMaddVibe wrote:

it would prolly mean more if you made it yourself.... 😟

DrafterX wrote:

I specifically enumerated what you omitted. Just because it was 50 posts ago don't pretend that I didn't do it. reread post 28

victor809 wrote: