There is an fable by Aesop, which comments on Jim's continued dodging of my questions.....
Aesop's Fables by Aesop: The Fox and the Grapes
The questions remain...
"Anyway, your logic is faulty because you've constructed a world of one sidedness that doesn't exist (in order to support a preceding view, I suspect.)"
And you back up this claim with what evidence outside of your assumption about my ideology?
" You could not have actually listened to Obama or read about him and come (with any critical honestly) to the conclusion you are promoting."
How could you possibly possess knowledge that I have not listened to him?
"Your argument is faulty because it relies on two sets of examples, neither of which are a feature of this debate."
You don't make a distinction here and point out which examples you are remarking about.
In light of that omission, how would anyone be able to determine whether or not they are "a feature of this debate" ?
Are you in a position to declare what about the candidate is up for debate or not?
"You've set up a strawman with two legs that don't exist."
This is another assertion of yours which lacks specificity and lacks evidence. How could anyone respond to this comment, when it's so vague?
"This election turns on our current history, not migration west and not WWII."
If you're a person who ignores the totality of American history and focuses on particular issues which fit your ideological needs, then you might make a statement such as this one.
Potentially, his comment "Of course, the other theory would be that you're in over your head but you don't realize everyone else knows it." could have been something to consider as having meaning, or insight, but as it is...an empty accusation.... it's another in a line of pointless distractions from the substance of the discussion.
But then, that's the method employed by Jim, whose submissions really aren't meant to be engaged.
Linear Mode
