|
FirmhandKY -> RE: 2008 Election News - Repubs Lead in Swing States (5/1/2007 12:20:29 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sinergy
Lovely statistics.
You (and the statistics) assume Billary is going to win the nomination.
p.s. why exactly would Al Gore, who can sweep the election, bother announcing his candidacy now and subject himself to the Right's trying to bash him? Sit back, announce at the last minute, take the election.
p.p.s. I wont be voting for Billary, so please dont do your usual tactic of attacking me personally.
Sinergy,
I wish to address a couple of your points, but your last point first.
I wont be voting for Billary, so please dont do your usual tactic of attacking me personally.
You constantly confuse the challenging of your facts and conclusions with a "personal attack".
A second aspect of your belief that my "usual tactic" is "personally attacking you" is that you are one of (if not the) pre-eminent practitioner of the snide, sarcastic and condescending (especially condescending) comment and post on this forum.
And I'm not sure you really, actually, understand that you do it, or what the impact that your style has on others. At times, I'm not certain if you intended to make a question or comment to me or others snide, or whether it was an honest question or comment, but I usually default to seeing it as in your normal sarcastic manner.
I suspect that uncertainty you engender is exactly your intent. But I'm uncertain. [:)]
Another thing that is frustrating in trying to engage you in any kind of conversation (in addition to your condescending and sarcastic attitude) is your insistence of assuming things at a tangent of what was actually said, or proposed.
A hypothetical example would be in a discussion about milk, where someone claims that all cow's milk that comes from the udder is white in color, you might jump in and insist that chocolate milk isn't white, and furthermore that it's the curds that have color and the majority of milk is just water, which is clear of any color.
Neither point which is related to the claim, although certainly about milk, which was the original topic.
It creates confusion, and ill will, especially when you then start using sarcastic retorts to claim that the original poster is obviously an idiot, has a poor grasp of milk, and is trying to change the subject.
It just leaves many - or at least me - shaking my head, and again wondering if you are unintentionally being obstructionist and dense, or if you have an agenda to cause frustration and divisiveness in the forum.
I do think you are an intelligent person, so my conclusion is that it is generally your intent to cause a conversational pile up - although, again, I am uncertain.
Even the few times I've seen you "apologize" for something, it seems to me to have been given in a sarcastic, "give-with-one-hand-take-back-with-the-other" attitude of unrepentant smugness.
So ... if you feel like I personally attack you, I think the first step to changing my way of interacting with you is to take a good hard look at how you yourself treat others.
Feel personally attacked now? Not my intent, and no sarcastic, snide remarks in the above post, just an honest appraisal of what I see.
Now to the meat of your post:
You (and the statistics) assume Billary is going to win the nomination.
No, just follow the link. The summary of the survey isn't all that long or complex. In all three states, Hilliary is the Democratic frontrunner, and Giuliani is the Republican front runner:
Florida Findings:
In a Democratic primary matchup, Clinton gets 36 percent, followed by 15 percent for Gore, 13 percent for Obama and 11 percent for John Edwards.
Ohio Results:
Clinton leads in a Democratic primary matchup with 37 percent, followed by 17 percent for Edwards, 14 percent for Obama and 11 percent for Gore.
Pennsylvania:
In a Democratic primary, Clinton leads with 36 percent, with 14 percent for Gore and Obama and 13 percent for Edwards.
As far as Al Gore, it's always easy to claim to support someone who isn't running.
FirmKY
|
|
|
|
