It's never too soon to rewrite history

I'm sure the response is directly from the pages of:

"Revisionist History of the Sovereign Citizens of the Plutocracy of the Founding Fathers"

He can't possibly be right, so he'll just move the goalposts and argue about what was "meant", so he won't be wrong...

:rofllol :LMAO:

So you believe Obama meant that there were 57 States in the Union simply because he said there were 57 States in the Union? Obviously not, though it was a funny blunder at the time, and reasonable people are capable of understanding the context of the statement instead of simply attempting to parse the statement and create something that wasn't said from something that was, which naturally excludes Jazzer since the subset only includes people who are capable of reason.

PrintSmith wrote: When one parses what was said, with the intention of removing the context in which it was said, the only excuse for doing so is an intent to mislead others about what was said. Such is the case with Jazzer's offering in this instance. She is lying about what DeLay said, pure and simple. What DeLay said was the sum of his words, not the partial sentence plucked from the middle of his statements. To pretend otherwise is both disingenuous and dishonest, two qualities Jazzer has displayed an abundance of on a regular basis for quite some time now. I may question her ability to understand this basic principle that anyone with an above room temperature IQ can easily grasp, but I am quite certain that it is not beyond your abilities to comprehend and understand.

Whoever taught you that an argument was dressing up an erroneous assumption in an infinitely complex sentence did you a great disservice.

Not that there is any mention of the Constitution here, but DeLay can dance (or try too)! :woo hoo:

[youtube:j4wmt4lw][/youtube:j4wmt4lw]

[youtube:j4wmt4lw][/youtube:j4wmt4lw]

BTW, just asking a question. Is he trying to get back into politics? If so, why do it after a successful dancing exhibition?

Well at least he tried. And we should award victory medals to all those who try...

not interested wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: When one parses what was said, with the intention of removing the context in which it was said, the only excuse for doing so is an intent to mislead others about what was said. Such is the case with Jazzer's offering in this instance. She is lying about what DeLay said, pure and simple. What DeLay said was the sum of his words, not the partial sentence plucked from the middle of his statements. To pretend otherwise is both disingenuous and dishonest, two qualities Jazzer has displayed an abundance of on a regular basis for quite some time now. I may question her ability to understand this basic principle that anyone with an above room temperature IQ can easily grasp, but I am quite certain that it is not beyond your abilities to comprehend and understand.

Whoever taught you that an argument was dressing up an erroneous assumption in an infinitely complex sentence did you a great disservice.

So what is it that you allege is an erroneous assumption? That parsing sentences for the purposes of altering their meaning is dishonest or that you are more capable of reason than Jazzer is?

not interested wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: When one parses what was said, with the intention of removing the context in which it was said, the only excuse for doing so is an intent to mislead others about what was said. Such is the case with Jazzer's offering in this instance. She is lying about what DeLay said, pure and simple. What DeLay said was the sum of his words, not the partial sentence plucked from the middle of his statements. To pretend otherwise is both disingenuous and dishonest, two qualities Jazzer has displayed an abundance of on a regular basis for quite some time now. I may question her ability to understand this basic principle that anyone with an above room temperature IQ can easily grasp, but I am quite certain that it is not beyond your abilities to comprehend and understand.

Whoever taught you that an argument was dressing up an erroneous assumption in an infinitely complex sentence did you a great disservice.

Considering I posted something that contained the whole 2:09 of his response, it was hardly "out of context," or "parsed." And DeLay SAID WHAT HE SAID... But, PS knew that, and any silliness beyond that is of his own making... because he knows I've already proven him a liar.

Sux2BU, in your Sovereign Citizen, revisionist-history, Founding-Fathers plutocracy delusional teabagger sort of way...don't it?

Really...

President Barack Obama rallied his grassroots base in support of a pared-down agenda Tuesday, addressing an “organizing summit” hosted by the issues group founded out of his former presidential campaign.

“You’re doing God’s work,” he told the roughly 300 invited donors, volunteers, and activists at the ornate Washington Mandarin Oriental Hotel for the Organizing for Action event, 13 months after the group was created.

http://swampland.time.com/2014/02/25/ob ... gods-work/

So God had something to do with the creation of OFA. Did he write their game plan, or did he just advise them?

OBAMA SAID WHAT HE SAID

Sux2BU, in your Soros Move On, socialist-history, Stalin totalitarian delusional progressive sort of way...doesn't it?

(This is TOO good. Someone who KNOWS that Lady Jazzer doesn't have you on "ignore," please quote this so she can see it. I can't wait to hear her reply)

What might be funny, if it wasn't so sad, is your ongoing attempts to take a fragment of a sentence, remove it from the whole, and attempting to convince others that DeLay was trying to say God took a pen in His hand and wrote the Constitution. Then again, bigots never have reason, in both senses of the word, supporting their beliefs.

PrintSmith wrote: What might be funny, if it wasn't so sad, is your ongoing attempts to take a fragment of a sentence, remove it from the whole, and attempting to convince others that DeLay was trying to say God took a pen in His hand and wrote the Constitution. Then again, bigots never have reason, in both senses of the word, supporting their beliefs.

What might be funny, if it wasn't so sad, is your ongoing attempts to convince others that DeLay wasn't trying to say what he actually said. Here's the quote again for you to read.

“I think we got off the track when we allowed our government to become a secular government,” DeLay told host Matthew Hagee, the executive pastor of the Texas Cornerstone Church. “[W]e stopped realizing that God created this nation, that he wrote the Constitution, that it’s based on biblical principles.”

I don't know how much clearer it could be.

not interested wrote: I don't know how much clearer it could be.

About as clear as this...

President Barack Obama rallied his grassroots base in support of a pared-down agenda Tuesday, addressing an “organizing summit” hosted by the issues group founded out of his former presidential campaign.

“You’re doing God’s work,” he told the roughly 300 invited donors, volunteers, and activists at the ornate Washington Mandarin Oriental Hotel for the Organizing for Action event, 13 months after the group was created.

http://swampland.time.com/2014/02/25/ob ... gods-work/

God is working with Organizing for Action. Obama said so. Good to see he's got his hand in both side of the political spectrum.