Same to you as above, #25. You think you know me, but get sucked into a narrative.
but you didn't submit a narrative, you submitted an argument in the POLITICS forum.
- a couple of years ago, your hat was summarily removed by some indignant woman
- tonight, You asked a different, unrelated woman if you could "knock her hat off her face" and that woman was offended.
- Therefore, Democrats can dish it out but they can't take it
When people began to question the morality of threatening revenge for minor offenses long past on victims with no connection to the original offense, you admitted for the second time in two days that your central premise was an unwarranted fabrication and now deny threatening random women at the grocery store for no good reason (although, of course, we are all now rather compelled to some degree of speculation on that count).
We should also note that since the only source we have supporting the first bit of evidence was the same unreliable source as the now disproven second bit of evidence we really have some good reason to mistrust the whole of your set up, leaving your thesis [Democrats can dish it out but they can't take it] stripped of any supporting evidence at all. Like the last forum, you seem to have nullified your own argument pretty effectively here by relying on fabricated evidence from which readers will infer that if honest evidence might have supported the argument, then honest evidence would probably have been presented and so the conclusion is generally discredited.
Seems like that's pretty much end of discussion.
