Who is the more formidable candidate?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Actually it was the Powerline guys, but they make a good point. Alexrod sounded dismissive of those demographics, as though it didn't matter. "We don't need 'em."



Huh?

Oh yeah- that's right. I once again forgot about your standard disclaimers:

"By reading this post, you, the reader, hereby acknowledge that Tex is not taking any position on any topic, and you hereby waive any opportunity you may have to point out any apparent discrepencies in statements made by Tex, whether in this thread or any other, due to the fact that none of those statements may reasonably be construed to take a position of any sort on any topic, whether in this world or any other.

While arguing against a position is, to the rest of the world, tantamount to taking a position, you hereby agree to suspend all reality in reading Tex's posts and to view any such arguments against a position as "mind exercises." Furthermore, you acknowledge that Tex may, in his own discretion, apply any number of logical fallacies in his posts, including but not limited to circular logic, appeals to authority, straw man, and appeal to popularity, while simultaneously accusing you of engaging in any aforementioned logical fallacy. Any such accusations made by Tex may or may not have any reasonable foundation.

In the event of a dispute with Tex, you hereby agree to appoint Indy Coug as mediator. By arguing with either Tex or the mediator, you also agree to forfeit your good standing in the LDS church (if you are a member) which will make you a heathen, and if you are not a member or are not active in the LDS church, you hereby agree that you are a heathen without any further action by Tex or the mediator.

In the event of a dispute regarding the meaning of any general authority, scriptural figure, etc., you acknowledge that Tex knows and understands the "clear" meaning of such statement, though such understanding and knowledge on the part of Tex shall not be deemed to be a position (see above)."


The statement from McCain that confused you is called an analogy. Say it with me. Uh-nal-uh-jee.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The statement from McCain that confused you is called an analogy. Say it with me. Uh-nal-uh-jee.

One that makes no sense.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

One that makes no sense.

Perhaps it is because the argument you were making on which the analogy is based also makes no sense (kind of the point of the analogy).

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Perhaps it is because the argument you were making on which the analogy is based also makes no sense (kind of the point of the analogy).

Nope. The analogy was just bad.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Nope. The analogy was just bad.

Why?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Why?

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...2&postcount=44

We're getting off track here. If you listen to the interview (link in my original post), it's clear Axelrod is discounting the fact that they can't garner the white middle class vote.

Do they "want" that vote? Of course they want it ... what vote does a politician NOT want? The point is, Axelrod is acknowledging how unlikely it is for that to happen, and implying they don't need it anyway.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...2&postcount=44

We're getting off track here. If you listen to the interview (link in my original post), it's clear Axelrod is discounting the fact that they can't garner the white middle class vote.

Do they "want" that vote? Of course they want it ... what vote does a politician NOT want? The point is, Axelrod is acknowledging how unlikely it is for that to happen, and implying they don't need it anyway.

"Getting off track" is Tex-code for "I can't answer your question, so I will change the subject."

Your argument, once again, boils down to a strained implication you fabricated to concoct an argument against Obama.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

"Getting off track" is Tex-code for "I can't answer your question, so I will change the subject."

Your argument, once again, boils down to a strained implication you fabricated to concoct an argument against Obama.

Your analogy makes no sense. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Your analogy makes no sense. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that.

Your repetition of it isn't helpful without an explanation which you refuse to give.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Your repetition of it isn't helpful without an explanation which you refuse to give.

*Shrug* Why don't you just try making your point in a different way so we can stay on topic, rather than dickering about something completely irrelevant?

Axelrod's comments were in response to a criticism that Obama didn't win that class of voter. Responding "well, most of them go to Republicans anyway" doesn't exactly telegraph to me that he's all that concerned about winning them. If you think the hidden subtext by that statement is: "come back, white working class voters, we love you!" then so be it.