Wait, do I still stand accused of *slandering* the the right-wing, fake news source?
Is that in addition to or instead of *cowardly mincing of words* for pointing out that according to Senate rules and Robert's Rules of Order a "unanimous vote" and "unanimous consent" are two distinctly different things?
So to review:
- The Economic Times is right-wing, fake news trash
- A resolution and a bill are two different things
- A unanimous vote and unanimous consent are two different things
- There was no "unanimous vote" in the Senate on the Kirk resolution
- I am one person, not a "we", although the quizzical flourish at the end of the question was super dramactic.
Query:
In the annals of the Crime of Insisting on Facts and Reputable Sources, which is the more serious crime, "mincing cowardly words" or slandering a right wing, fake news source?
