Here is the first comment in the thread:
>The good news is that Oregon, according to the article, also gave up on its climate change bill.
Here is the next:
>"Gave up" in this case consists of a certain party's legislative membership fleeing to Idaho to deny quorum.
And then came mine:
>Umm... no. They returned in time to continue the session. It didn't pass because there weren't enough Democrats who supported the bill.
And then eventually you ask me:
>If you value the truth why did you exclude so much of it?
The first two comments were clearly omitting an important fact, so I contributed to the conversation by providing excluded truths. Furthermore, my comment implicitly acknowledged that the senators ran away to prevent a quorum, by acknowledging that they returned. In case there was any doubt, I made that explicit in my next comment.
Not to mention that my (initial) comment contained more information, and actually provided a source. And in all these comments criticizing mine, no one else has even bothered to provide a source to support their claims.
So what did I exclude, and why am I the one being asked? Why not hold the original commenters to the same standard?
As I said, at the end of the legislative session:
1. There was quorum.
2. No one was stalling the bill at that point.
3. The Democrats chose not to have a vote on the bill because of actions by their own party members. Whatever tactics the Republicans initially used to stall the bill, at the end the Democrats contributed to the failure in getting the bill passed.
(For anyone still reading, and confused about my original comments - their scores were well into the negatives, although they no longer are so.)