In which Steve provides Andy with help on his reading comprehension and how to conduct a debate, all in one post
Actually, when one says, "I have to offer a caveat here...I am also not defending her in any way", you are actually defending her. To put that "caveat" in there, you must have felt that what you were about to say would come across as defending her, which you ended up doing.
That is one of the most illogical things I've ever seen written. Let's see if I have this correct. Because I offered the caveat that I was not defending Hillary, it means, automagically, that I am defending her. Right. Sure thing.
But even that is not as ridiculous as the fact that you are still off in the weeds, cherry-picking my posts and ignoring the central issue. Could it be because you have no rebuttal and choose to quibble over side issues? Stick to the point, Andy, and whether or not I was defending Hillary isn't it.
Who would have thought Steve Brenneis would be defending and spinning for Hillary Clinton???
You're still off on side issues, Andy, and this silly sentence is little more than a juvenile "nanny nanny boo boo." Rebut my main point, stop cherry-picking my arguments, and stay on topic.
Since I didn't believe we had that tax in place, that's why I asked you when did Bush propose a windfall profits tax. It was just a mis-communication. As you can see, I didn't make it up "out of thin air."
I have no idea why you would ask me that since I never implied that he did. There was a windfall profits tax on oil in place for years. I can't honestly tell you when it expired. Hillary used the term "windfall profits" in her speech. I assumed she meant that tax. I would assume from her words that her intent would be to bring that tax back. It was very popular among Democrats since it played to their class warfare tactics very nicely. In any case, it is still a cherry-picked side issue.
Searching the web, I can't find where Bush proposed that...
I'm sorry. Maybe you should just search the BP since we discussed it here.
BTW, what's a "pubbie?"
Re-pub-lican. It's a term of endearment for party-line GOP droids.
Since this post was originally about Hillary, then one should ask you what's your point with your Bush obsession in this post???
No, Andy, the original point wasn't about Hillary. I guess that's why you keep going off on tangents and side issues. The original point was about the pathetic way in which the Republicans are continuing to engage in strategies destined to elect Hillary to the White House without much of a fight. I have no Bush obsession, I offered the fact that your boy is just as much a socialist as the Beast. It is part of the evidence that the Republicans are clueless as to how to go about defeating her since they are still offering nothing but Bush clones as the "mainstream" (a.k.a. "electable") GOP candidates. They spend all their time screeching about socialists and pointing fingers when their emperor is just as naked. I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat that, but I will keep plugging along until you get it.