"I've covered most of your points, TB, so no need to re-hash. However, I will comment on :
Too ironic! If anything, your statements "paint" Gov. Palin as 'a loser' and YOU don't even realize.
I do realize. Why would you think otherwise? I've never endorsed Palin. The only thing I've ever said positive about her is that she is a looker. And I'll defend that one all night! Just because I chastized people who went to extremes in attempt to denigrate her (surely you've heard me harp on the idiocy of trying to tie her to the actions of her daughter's boyfriend's mother) and came down on people who made fun of her handicapped child does not mean I endorsed her politically.
Consider this: if it's NOT true, then what's your point???
Read above paragraph. My point is clear and I stand by it.
#330 | Posted by goatman at 2009-07-02 05:51 PM
WHICH of my points have you covered, goatman???
In case you missed my points, I'll iterate:
#1. You falsely assume one "knows" the Democrats don't have a candidate worth voting for, so their strategy is to hope for a weak opponent. My point: yours is a weak (at best) assumption and there are other BETTER reasons to hope for a weak oppponent. Since your beginning premise is in doubt (as shown by my points), conclusions can not be drawn or supported from it. This you did not address.
#2. You state a 'decent candidate' would (should?) win. That's obvious and was noted as such, so that was neither addressed nor needed to be addressed.
#3. Your statement (and my point) is an iteration of #1, which (again) you did not address.
#4. This is the only item you DO address. You state that: "Funny to see the dems admit all they have to offer are losers, and they don't even realize they are admitting it. LOL". My point was your statement was ironic since you were doing PRECISELY what you accused "the dems" of doing. In addition, no dem has admitted that all they have to offer are losers. Since you haven't proven either case (1. that "the dems" admit that all they have to offer are losers or 2. "the dems" strategy is to hope for 'a loser' opponent), your conclusions have no stated basis.
Meanwhile, IF your only point is that Gov. Palin is "a loser", then I guess we're done. Otherwise, I would suggest providing some "hash" before claiming it's "a RE-hash". Of course, if I missed something you "hashed", please enlighten me...
"I've covered most of your points, TB, so no need to re-hash. However, I will comment on :
Too ironic! If anything, your statements "paint" Gov. Palin as 'a loser' and YOU don't even realize.
I do realize. Why would you think otherwise? I've never endorsed Palin. The only thing I've ever said positive about her is that she is a looker. And I'll defend that one all night! Just because I chastized people who went to extremes in attempt to denigrate her (surely you've heard me harp on the idiocy of trying to tie her to the actions of her daughter's boyfriend's mother) and came down on people who made fun of her handicapped child does not mean I endorsed her politically.
Consider this: if it's NOT true, then what's your point???
Read above paragraph. My point is clear and I stand by it.
#330 | Posted by goatman at 2009-07-02 05:51 PM
WHICH of my points have you covered, goatman???
In case you missed my points, I'll iterate:
#1. You falsely assume one "knows" the Democrats don't have a candidate worth voting for, so their strategy is to hope for a weak opponent. My point: yours is a weak (at best) assumption and there are other BETTER reasons to hope for a weak oppponent. Since your beginning premise is in doubt (as shown by my points), conclusions can not be drawn or supported from it. This you did not address.
#2. You state a 'decent candidate' would (should?) win. That's obvious and was noted as such, so that was neither addressed nor needed to be addressed.
#3. Your statement (and my point) is an iteration of #1, which (again) you did not address.
#4. This is the only item you DO address. You state that: "Funny to see the dems admit all they have to offer are losers, and they don't even realize they are admitting it. LOL". My point was your statement was ironic since you were doing PRECISELY what you accused "the dems" of doing. In addition, no dem has admitted that all they have to offer are losers. Since you haven't proven either case (1. that "the dems" admit that all they have to offer are losers or 2. "the dems" strategy is to hope for 'a loser' opponent), your conclusions have no stated basis.
Meanwhile, IF your only point is that Gov. Palin is "a loser", then I guess we're done. Otherwise, I would suggest providing some "hash" before claiming it's "a RE-hash". Of course, if I missed something you "hashed", please enlighten me...