It’s been one of the things I’ve been chronically amazed by, for the entire time I’ve been on this board: periodically, posters will claim, “No, I didn’t say X” when it’s right there in black and white, about fifteen posts previous, or simply implying in rebuttal that they’d said something else entirely. But usually, such posters are of the ‘just passing through’ variety, or are the kind that wind up on a lot of people’s ‘ignore’ lists because they never add anything intelligent to a debate anyway.
Which is why it’s kinda strange to see Weirddave do it. I mean, he does have a few brain cells to rub together. A few examples:
In post 43, Dave makes the following claims:
- “Traditionally, judicial nominees come from the President and are subject to an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate.”
- “I am not aware of a precedent for one party filibustering in order to prevent that vote from happening.”
- “All the Democrats are fighting for is a tool to prevent the Senate as a whole from voting on the nominees, as the Constitution says they are supposed to do.”
With respect to (1): In post 56, rjung responded: “Cite for the “traditionally,” please. It’s certainly not unprecedented for the Senate Judiciary Committee to block judicial nominees so they can’t get a chance for a full vote by the Senate – the Republicans squelched over sixty of Bill Clinton’s nominees that way.”
Dave’s rejoinder: “So tell me rjung, is the issue here keeping nominees in committee? Because if it is, than you have just made an on topic point. It’s not? Well than what the fuck are you bringing it up for?”
Or (2): in the same post, rjung adds: “Does Bill Frist filibustering against Clinton nominee Richard Paez count?”
Dave: “That as an attempt to filibuster, I don’t believe it actually worked.”
Or (3): In post 97, TYM said: “You stated that the right to an up-or-down vote is in the Constitution. I said prove it. You weasled.”
Dave, post 99: “Except that nowhere did I say the Constitution demands an up-and-down vote.”
And later, there was this:
Dave, post 108: “Show me one place in this thread where I started the insults. I have responded to insults thrown my way, I have not initiated them with anyone.”
As I pointed out there - Dave, post 58: “Rjung, I know this is like asking a cow to breath water, but I’ll try again anyway. Just once try thinking with your brain and not jerking with your knee.”
Or, for that matter, Dave, post 75: “RT you fucking moron” In the original thread, I was too lazy to go back and see what I’d already said about Dave. Having looked, I’d have a hard time characterizing any of it as an insult. But maybe Dave’s thin-skinned about such things, and considers my characterization of him as being on the same side as us liberals, but just against us on everything from the war to Social Security to judicial filibusters, as an insult; I dunno.
Anyhow, I’ve been intending for awhile to Pit people who seem to be oblivious to the fact that their previous words in a discussion are a matter of record. Thanks, Dave, for providing the opportunity.