Thank you. Thank you and again thank you! So what I said to my lady is watch this. I'm going to type all caps. Watch him seize on that and pretend there weally weally is some kind of "internet" difference between typing in all caps and giant fonts. It means you are calm cool collected and not the least bit deranged and having an internet argument that might result in a stroke.
Bravo!
Did she look at you with awe in her eyes and say "Goddamn sweetie, you are one super interwebz badass of unparralelled proportions! Can I blow you right now?"
If not, I can't see why you would bring this up. If it doesn't end with a BJ, it's not very flattering.
If so, how was the BJ? Teeth, no teeth? Swallow or spit? Inquiring minds want to know.
Meanwhile back at the ranch, the list of lies never materialized.:roll:
you have a point. While I did postat least one example of a lie which you have dutifuly ignored and focussed on me instead of admitting, I never provided a full list.
So allow me to do so now:
In order to aviod being convicted Clinton entered into an agrement with prosecutors that included paying Jones and losing his license to practise law.
In response to a claim that justice was served in the
Jones case even though it never went to a jury, you say that he made an agreement with
prosecutors. Of course, the agreement with Jones was directly with Jones to get her to drop her civil case.
Now, if you were talking about the subsequent case which was not being discussed at all at that point (making it a non-sequitor), the agreement with federal prosecutors did
not involve paying Jones anything. She was paid off in the settlement of her own case.
Clearly you were mixing the two agreements together as though they were on. since what was being discussed in this context was very specifically the Jone's case, you were either: Unaware of the actual facts of the settlement, in which case you needed to check them, as I had stated, or you were purposefully distorting the truth.
Following Clinton's settlement with Jones federal prosecutors were going to prosecute him for actions stemming from the Jones case. Like I said before.
The part in bold is a flat out lie. You did
not say this before.
The name calling certainly must have made you feel better.
This is also a lie, sinc eI did not call you any names at all in this discussion.
I did not at any time in this thread call anyone a liar. I have called some
statements lies, but never did I call anyone a liar. I wouldn't call someone a liar unless they shwo a consistent tendency to lie over a long period of time
This is much like how I would not call someone who has done a little carpentry in their home a carpenter,. I might call the act of building whatever it was that they had built carpentry, but doing a wee bit of carpentry doesn't make someone a carpenter.
I also did not call anyone a hack.
In #133 I stated that to avoid conviction Clinton entered into agreements with prosecutors that included paying Jones off and losing his license to practice law. CHECK.
Same post as the one above, and also a lie. You did
not state that in post 133. Post 133 is quoted above, and
nowhere does it say what you now claim it states. Post #133 very clearly indicates that your portrayal intertwined the results of the Jones settlement with the arrangement that led to Clinton's license being suspended. you only speak of a single agreement, with prosecutors no less, that
included (this word would indicate they the single agreement mention has
on it's own dealt with both actions subsequently described) paying off Jones and avoiding criminal charges.
You're way too defensive and it leaves you unable to read what has actually been stated.
As I've clearly shown, I read exactly what was stated,. It was you who attempted to alter them after the fact.
But sure, in the land of Fred Rogers I was pushing falsehoods!
This isn't a lie, per se, but it
does represent the first time either of us ever called the other one a name intended to insult.
Looks more like you get irritated and start making poor assumptions and arguments the second someone challenges you!
this is a lie
and an attempt to talk about me instead of admitting that you either did not have your facts straight or you distorted those facts in your first post to me.
In fact, I just read a thread where one of your "friends" called you out for repeated and nasty illogical arguments that seem to be happening strictly for the sake of argument.:2wave:
I don't even know what you were talking about here, but I'm pretty sure it is either a lie, or some gross distortion of reality.
I was right about ALL of them. Check your facts.
This is another lie. Post 133 was not at all factual, and subsequent statements without admitting the errors were also not factual.
Now, instead of telling your lady how awesome you are, why don't you take a moment to prove that I called you a liar or a hack and that there was a single agreement which included Jones being paid
and Clinton losing his law licence. If you cannot prove these things, perhaps you can prove that tehse words I have quoted of you saying that these things happened are not really your words.
Anything else is merely an admission that the above statements I have quoted are lies (notice, I'm saying the statemnts are lies, not that you are a liar. If simply telling lies makes someone a liar, then there is no insult to the term since everyoen would be a liar.)
