Hypothetical or not, you made statements regarding Clinton's actions, then when I disputed them you claimed you hadn't made them. I simply copied them from your various posts. I'm sorry if you feel that those quotes should've had the post numbers with them. If you want to go back and check them, they are in chronological order, so it shouldn't be too hard.
"Your posts are a comedy routine: 1st post: it isn't an objection, it is a lie. It has been done: contradiction is not argument, yes it is, no it isn't."
While you get points for the subtle Monty Python reference, your metaphor is inaccurate. My point is that your claim that his lie was an "objection" is clearly false. In #12324 you say "Given the assumptions, the lie functions as another objection. [same as your suggestion, they are both contemptuous.] Gotten away with, no harm to the case, or him, or this particular SH law. Not revealed, the lie doesn't enter the reality or history of written law, so no harm to Law." An objection is, according to Webster's "an act of objecting." But if the lie not revealed "doesn't enter the reality or history of written law," then it is essentially a non-event, therefore not a discernible act, therefore not an objection but simply a lie.
-BLT |
