Kentucky congressman disinvites AOC to visit coalminers (4-17-2019)

this thread isn’t about AOC. it’s about if a person can admit they’re wrong.

5 Likes

Here’s what I expect. “When they go low we go high.” :grin:

this is an invite. not an insurance policy. what a ridiculous analogy. policy is agreed upon up front by both parties in each case.

heres a non-ridiculous analogy. you decide to invite a friend over to watch the game next week. in meantime friend gets drunk and badmouths your wife (or another friend). you say “apologize or dont bother coming”

did you “cancel” the first invite then send another with “conditions?”

of course not. it’s absurd

if you think someone’s wrong you are free to point out where

or just cheer from the sidelines. that’s cute too.

< shakes pompoms >

Let me also point out that in his letter, Barr is a bit deceptive.

The first paragraph explains what Barr is upset about - that Cortez said Crenshaw should do something about domestic terrorism.

The second paragraph outlines why Barr is upset - that Crenshaw fought and sacrificed fighting terrorism in Afghanistan.

But Cortez didn’t criticize Crenshaw’s history versus international terrorism, she specifically singled out domestic terrorism - right wing or left wing, antifa, anti-abortion, racisist, blm…you get the idea. Crenshaw’s bona fides against terrorism don’t extend to domestic terrorists like these.

So Barr’s complaint falls apart when examined closely.

3 Likes

Har har. :slight_smile:

Again ■■■■ crenshaw and his one eye and Barr

1 Like

Bait and switch happens to invitations too.

Allan

1 Like

maybe. but not here

Dude. Just admit you’re wrong so this thread fails off the front page. It’ll show integrity.

if you can show where i am wrong, go right ahead. otherwise convince your fellow lefty AOC defender that nothing supports his OP and then you wont have to bear seeing this thread appearing on your poor computer/phone

So what would call it, the former unconditional invite, now with conditions. Talk about a word pretzel.

Allan

i already told you

theres no “bait and switch” because nothing supports the narrative that barr was planning on bailing after she accepted

nothing

By placing conditions on the original invite, the invite was changed into a new invite.

Unconditional does not equal conditional.

Only in a trump supporters dictionary.

Allan

“changed”

“modified”

“bait and switch”

“cancelled, then re-invited”

compared to an insurance policy

these are but a few ways you attempt to salvage an OP that is inherently untrue, by twisting words to make it sound like there was an actual “disinvite”

why dont you just admit that wasnt the right word, and that you dont think the yahoo news op articke was accurate either (because nothing was “rescinded”) and we can move on

It was a disinvite, you choose not to accept it.

everyone is entitled to be wrong on occasion. This is your occasion.

Allan

This thread explains what Trumpism is about.

4 Likes

hmm well, there was no “disinvite.” word was not mentioned anywhere by barr. same for “cancelled” “rescinded” etc

your op is still wrong

even the “cnn left” can get ahead of themselves sometimes, esp when reading yahoo news

my OP is totally accurate. Barr disinvited AOC. Its clear to all except you.

Allan

sure even though there was no disinvite anywhere.

stand on your head and tell the world they’re upside-down