31 ms·
You were incorrect and you admitted it, which is good, but then you immediately move the goalposts and then use that to pretend that you were justified in your
by badsock 10y ago
You were incorrect and you admitted it, which is good, but then you immediately move the goalposts and then use that to pretend that you were justified in your original assertation.
That's a shady rhetorical technique, and I suspect you're arguing in bad faith. That's worth some downvotes.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- 3131s 10y agoWait, were they incorrect? My interpretation was that GP meant that Obama did the same thing (firing existing politically appointed ambassadors) and then in addition filled the positions with people who had donated to his campaign (hence not the "exact same thing", but worse). I really don't know the facts here, but my cursory reading of the Wapo article does seem to suggest that Obama did essentially the same thing in 2008. Or am I missing something?
- jack9 10y ago> You were incorrect and you admitted it, which is good Ironically, you are incorrect and have strangely doubled down on it in some sort of pyrrhic victory dance of failure.
- scrollaway 10y agobadsock has posted exactly once in this entire thread. Give your fellow HNers the benefit of the doubt.
- true_religion 10y agoIt surprised me too. I thought he was the original poster, but the original commenter was 'jquery'.