Doesn’t change the disingenuousness of the thread in the first place.
The very connections you made between your alleged intention to vote for Obama, on the one hand, and your reneging on that because of the behavior of some of his supporters, on the other, were completely spurious and, to use your own word, outrageous.
The fact that you later conceded that you were a complete dick doesn’t change the fact that you were a complete dick.
I recognize that this board relies, for the most part, on taking at face value the things other posters tell us about their intentions and beliefs, but i’m still not sure i believe Point 1, above.
Yes, I was a complete dick. Now, I think there was some provocation, but when the sun set on that day, the fact is that I acted like a complete and utter ass. No defense at all, except to say, as I did then, that I was wrong and I apologize.
That, too, is fair, given my general leanings and established beliefs.
In response, I can affirm again that it’s true, and I can point (if you want) to the first time I said it, shortly after the election, when (presumably) I wouldn’t have had much motive to dissemble.
And I can even share my reasoning:
McCain’s scattered response towards the financial crisis. (“Let’s suspend the campaign! Immediately! OK! Never mind!”)
Palin.
Obama’s clear integrity and commitment to a new way of campaigning and leading.
Again, don’t know how convincing that is, but it’s the truth.
The usual argument is that the language in a statute is ambiguous or unclear, so that we have to look to the legislative intent, or some other external factor to determine the meaning.
In this case, that argument simply doesn’t fly. And as evidence I’ll point out, again, that in the nearly four years since this law passed, not one case of domestic violence has included the argument that the statute is inapplicable because Virginia’s DOMA vitiates it.
So if such an argument were even remotely plausible, it stands to reason that some lawyer somewhere would have rolled the dice.
Really? Why? It was not a slam-dunk call for me. I found myself making the same sorts of calculations that RTFirefly discusses in the ‘lying politician’ thread: is it better to get an intelligent, calm, principled leader in who unfortunately has fundamental beliefs about the role of government that I disagree with… or better to get in a less intelligent, less calm, less principled leader who will probably push forward in more directions I believe in?
In the final analysis, I thought the country needed Obama more than McCain, even though as a general rule, I think the GOP’s approach is better for the country than the Democrats’. But head to head, at that time in 2008, Obama was the better choice.
But apart from my self-reporting… I have to say I doubt you “knew” it.
OT:
Wait, what? I’m confused. In my (admittedly limited) experience with environmental law and a few other areas, there were many situations in which one party was arguing that they were/were not allowed to do X because of the plain language of a statute, while the other party argued that they were/were not allowed to do so because of a different plain meaning, or as you mentioned that it was ambiguous, unclear, or not within the spirit of the regulation.
Cos that’s what life is all about isn’t it… “Naaahh, I WAS right, see… :p”
At least do provide us with the grand reveal in this case, otherwise you’re going to look like you’re just obsessing over one argument in one thread four years ago. FOUR YEARS AGO!!!
There is no grand reveal. I think Eonwe said it perfectly, above:
So what’s your answer to that question? How do you prevent this sort of tactic from being used in discussion?
And look at the trickery: now you scream that it’s four years ago – way too long! But in a thread nearly a year after the event, the defense was that enough time HADN’T gone by – that more time was needed to see the claimed horror would emerge.
That’s true. There are few things as infuriating as the person who so conveniently forgets anything that is inconvenient at the moment, and waves it off with a “I never said that” - when you know damn well he did.
Don’t worry – the thread three years from now, when I start asking people where the racial profiling in Arizona is… that thread will break this record, because everyone will line up for that one to declare how foolish I am to insist on that victory; that it doesn’t matter because the issue is three years old, and maybe one or two will insist that it’s just a matter of time, and those racial abuses will be coming soon.
