"You did mention it. Funny how you see things I did not write, but cannot see things that you did."
Let's use the wayback machine. You said the following: "Wow...now you are starting to make excuses for both sides. If I did not know better, I might think you aluminum hat is on a bit too tight." about the following: "It would be interesting if Romney wins OH or PA due to supposed election fraud. I'd love to see the fallout from the progressives on that one. It would be even better if it were fraud that could have been prevented with something simple like voter ID." Nowhere do I make excuses either side. I bring this to your attention with the following I am not making excuses for anyone. I am saying that it would be interesting to watch the fallout. Hence the words: "It would be interesting . . ." This is where it gets good and your hypocrisy is proven. You follow up with this: "You have mentioned 'voter fraud' a few time when discussing the outcome of the election. Seems like you are convinced, wither way, the winner will be determined by fraud." You attempt to use "Anecdotal evidence" to say that my previous statement determine the meaning of the statement regarding "it would be interesting . . ." So, just as stated, anecdotal evidence is only worthless when it doesn't suit your side. "I really have no idea what your point is here." When you were talking about blinders, I assumed you meant that you had them on. J - The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system. - Barack Obama ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:357712 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
