Just to make sure: you agree that the fact of having ultimately changed their stance doesn’t imply they didn’t mean that stance in the first place?
Absolutely.
As I said early on in the GD thread (emphasis added here):
For extra clarity: when I said “…was not accurate…” I mean that as things turned out, the prediction about their future action was not accurate, NOT that the claim they made at the time was not accurate. I don’t say they lied, or failed to live up to a commitment.
nm
We weren’t talking about predictions. Per your OP, we were talking about an allegation of untruthfulness.
And the truth or falseness of your allegation depended on the durability of the alleged commitment on the part of the Dems. This is why we’ve been asking, for a few eons now, for a for-instance of that meme that would demonstrate that durability. I and others have been pretty clear about all that, over and over and over again.
Y’know, if you meant what you now say you meant in post 31 of the original thread, you’ve had seven pages worth of opportunities to clarify that, to point to that and say, “no, I way overstated things in the OP. I’m not accusing the Dems of having been untruthful back in 2006 or whenever, just because they were singing a different song in December 2012.”
So I call bullshit. I’ve got no reason to believe you now. You managed to find yourself an out, where you can pretend at the end that you haven’t really been defending a certain position through eight pages of two threads. But really, all you’re doing is increasing your reputation for disingenuousness.
The poor lad has only had about seven years of higher education, he just needs a bit of assistance in clarifying his point. Really, it wasn’t actually a criticism, or an accusation of hypocrisy, just a minor observation of no real significance. He is perfectly willing to forget he ever said any such thing, and would just as soon we did too.
Sure, it seemed as though he were saying something very harsh, but that was just unfortunate wording. We’ve all done that sort of thing, walk up to someone, seize them by the lapels and scream into their face “Your shoelaces are undone!”
Horseshit. Quote me one sentence where I said Dems lied.
My complaint, and what I’ve been defending, has been this demand for a cite about the MEME – this denial that there was ever such a message from the Dems. This is why I kept saying that you agreed with me – you weren’t denying the meme existed.
My point right from the get-go has been that the Dems were singing a different song back then, and asking if they would return to singing that song again.
If what you think is true, then how can you possibly explain away my line: “That may well be true, but I’m not accusing the Democrats of bad faith. I am just pointing out that their prediction – for what very possibly might have been good, albeit unforeseeable, reasons – was not accurate.”
How much more clear can “I’m not accusing the Democrats of bad faith” be??? How can you read that post any other way than what I’m saying it is?
Your OP, which I just quoted. You know, “Of course, that message wasn’t the truth.”
Well, yeah. And the response has been, sure, most of us acknowledge that at least some Dems said something like that, once upon a time. But the Dem reaction to Newtown didn’t make what they said however many years ago “not the truth.” And since YOU are saying that, you need to provide a for-instance substantiating that they said something that would have its truth contradicted by their response to Newtown.
[QUOTE]
You’ve only been saying that, what, on the current page?
Nobody gave a good goddamn about your question. They (and I) had a problem with your claiming untruthfulness on the part of the Democrats.
To be honest, I missed that part of your response to Max. But you failed to reiterate it or elaborate on it when the same point kept coming up over the next 7 pages.
And that’s what you could have done to make it more clear. You sure acted like you were still fighting that same battle. No “hey, I conceded that point already!” No “OK, I agree that the Dems were being truthful at the time when they said they’d given up on gun control.” You had seven fucking pages to make it clear that you’d withdrawn that specific claim of untruthfulness.
I’m not gonna play your head games any more. I can no longer see the point in debating you. You make facts up (remember ‘outlier by definition’ in the 102 year old woman thread?), you treat basic scientific fact like just another belief system (specifically, needing a brain to be a person, in the Cardinal Mahoney thread), and now you pull this shit.
The pile has gotten too high and deep to be worth slogging through.
It was true at the time. It became untrue.
And even if that was unclear, why didn’t my post #31 serve to clear up the misunderstanding?
What could be more clear than That may well be true, but I’m not accusing the Democrats of bad faith. I am just pointing out that their prediction – for what very possibly might have been good, albeit unforeseeable, reasons – was not accurate.
How is that not crystal clear?
So you missed this post, but it’s my fault.
Gotcha.
The battle I kept fighting was not the one you were fighting – which, again, was made obvious because I specifically said you agreed with me – didn’t you wonder why I was saying that??
The battle I was fighting was the ridiculous demand for a cite for the very existence of the meme you cheerfully admitted. You say i failed to reiterate – you’ll notice that I never reaffirmed your version of my point either; I never said, “Yes, the Democrats were liars!” Why isn’t THAT the dispositive fact here?
Yes, I didn’t repeat it again and again – but Christ, there are dozens of people slamming me and I’m only one person. I kind of rely on people reading what I write. It amazes me that you can come along, see that I very clearly disavowed any bad faith on the part of the Democrats, see that you missed it, and make that somehow my fault.
Tomorrow, when I awaken, I will realize that Bricker is a paragon of perfect candor, entirely innocent of slanderous insinuation, and the very embodiment of generous acceptance.
Could be wrong about that. But we’ll see.
OK, two last things. First of all, very often there are multiple conversations going on in the same thread. I don’t always read everyone’s replies to everyone else. I’m sure that’s a common practice.
But yeah, it is your fault for not making it clear that you specifically were repudiating what you said in the OP. Even having read it, that’s not clear.
Also, I’m clearly not the only one who missed that brief reference. John Mace, Hentor, 'luc, we all missed it, based on their subsequent posts.
Doesn’t say much for your communication skills, counselor.
Finally, you almost immediately reversed course. In post 41 of the original thread:
There you go: “never accurate.” Not even “accurate at the time, but not later” but “never accurate” because the Dems didn’t really give up on gun control, they were just lying in wait.
So you were talking out of both sides of you mouth, saying contradictory things, oh, 6 hours and 12 minutes apart.
Clearly you didn’t mean what you said to Max, because you changed your tune, not 6-7 years later, like the Dems you accuse of duplicity, but 6-7 hours later.
Because you only started saying it at post 65 of this thread, at which point I didn’t wonder. I figured it was just an outright lie piled on top of the usual duplicity.
“Never accurate” means never accurate in retrospect: it was always true that if some event happened, elected Democrats were susceptible to switching their positions… it does NOT mean that that they deliberately lied.
It’s amazing to me that you choose to ignore the clear, unambiguous words from me in favor of taking my admittedly ambiguous words and giving them the worst possible interpretation.
So I notice, even now that you (hopefully) understand I’m not accusing the Dems of lying, or any bad faith, you’re reluctant to answer this question: will the Dems do it again?
The guy who says, “I swear I’ll never take another drink again,” is telling the truth, and is utterly sincere, when he says it.
But the guy who says it fifteen times, each time after falling off the wagon, may still be sincere, but his promise now has a hollow ring: he may be sincere but listeners are entitled to conclude he can’t deliver on his prediction.
This is NOT the situation the Dems are in. There is no “falling off the wagon” part of this story: they made a prediction, and then an event changed the landscape. But going forward, a repeat of the prediction – now with everyone concerned knowing that such events are realistically possible – is a different story.
So – will the Democrats again float the idea that they are uninterested in gun control?
I just consulted an expert and got this:Reply hazy, try again
I appreciate your clarification, but still don’t understand: are you suggesting that
- this idea was floated by at least one specific national-level Democrat who now is interested in gun control?
Or are you suggesting that
- there were some Democrats who were uninterested in gun control and who are still uninterested in gun control who overgeneralized their own proclivities to the rest of their party?
If it’s #1, one response is helpful; if it’s #2, another is helpful.
But even then, I’m not sure how there’s a debate. If anyone ever thought that gun control was forever off the table, that person was delusional. If anyone ever thought that a Democrat was speaking for all Democrats everywhere forever when they said Democrats were uninterested in gun control, see previous sentence.
Of course gun control will be a controversial issue for the foreseeable future, just like abortion will be. There’s no debate among reasonable people about that proposition.
[hijack!] Yes. Because there are plenty of single-issue gun voters in rural districts. But you might consider that a majority of NRA members favor background checks, which creates a potential safe haven. Except we won’t get that anyway: the NRA will arrange for a loophole, all the better to maintain current levels of massacre and mayhem, thereby keeping their gullible membership sufficiently jizzed and their clients well funded.
A massacre of 6 year olds doesn’t change these political fundamentals. In fact it encourages it: the NRA depends upon periodic gun safety bills put on table, however toothless. [/hijack!]