July 26, 2009

What else is new

I screwed up my facts [but] it didn’t detract from the overall point.
Who needs facts anyway. What matters is the "point."


Jason Haas said...

A friend who was in law school had a right-wing classmate who ranted (in class) about how Sen. Feingold "voted against Ashcroft" because Ashcroft is Pentecostal (so claimed this guy) and Feingold is Jewish. So, he alleged, Feingold voted against Ashcroft for religious reasons. Stacie immediately raised her hand to correct this, as Feingold had in fact voted for Ashcroft's confirmation. The guy, flustered, said that may be so, "but my point still stands."

Your "point" has been invalidated. But it still stands!... yeah.

illusory tenant said...

There was a lot of pressure on Feingold to oppose Ashcroft's nomination. He gave a pretty righteous speech explaining why he was voting to confirm.

Matter of fact, I was at Feingold's listening session in West Bend when he announced how he was planning to vote, in response to a question from the friend who'd brought me there. That was news.