"But I still can't tell whether you're ignorant of the definition or a hypocrite."
Confused by facts so you lash out at some one to demonize.

Joe Biden was factual. Your problem is that his remarks were not spun by the Liberal Media into a fairy tail of your liking.

Your zero credibility is another hostile Ad hominem attack.

One of the most common non-rational appeals is an argumentum ad hominem--or, as the Latin phrase suggests, an "argument against the person" (and not against the ideas he or she is presenting). Our decisions should be based on a rational evaluation of the arguments with which we are presented, not on an emotional reaction to the person or persons making that argument. But because we often react more strongly to personalities than to the sometimes abstract and complex arguments they are making, ad hominem appeals are often very effective with someone who is not thinking critically.

You could say my remarks about you are ad hominem but you haven't presented any facts. Rather you attack other people personally to try to disprove their facts.

If you do decide to present some facts, which is a common occurence in a forum, I will not attack your character but I will comment about the validity of the facts you present.

You did say that "the public rightly continues to blame Bush" without mentioning that fifty some percent blame Bush. That means 40 some percent do not blame Bush. If you go to RCP the poll Biden referred to was 51% blame Bush.

This demonstrates the use of weasel words to try to disprove what Biden said and attack me for it.

And where is your scathing criticism of Bobert "facts"? Where is your personal attack on him for spinning and twisting? Where are your demands for the sources of Bobert "facts?

Could it be that you only attack certain people you disagree with? That you tolerate nonfactual statements from people that agree with you for political purposes? Tribal Politics?

Just questions that you may want to answer out of a sense of fairness and courtesy.