In which Steve provides Andy with one hell of a headache, all in one post :-)
Steve opines: "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."
In this particular case, you did defend her. I didn't mean for that to be an attack on you... I originally said it in passing.
"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."
I hope our dear readers are getting a chuckle out of this... I had a rebuttal to Hillary's plan to take the oil profits and put them in a strategic reserve. You disagreed with my rebuttal. I've been sticking to the point and I've been following you into the weeds.
"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."
Here's where I believe we can reach common ground on this issue: If Hillary proposes bringing back that tax, I believe she will have that tax in the 90-100% range. With that, we can both say we are right. :-)
"I'm sorry. Maybe you should just search the BP since we discussed it here."
I still can't find it.
"Re-pub-lican. It's a term of endearment for party-line GOP droids."
Is that some Free Republic lingo??? Just call them Kool-Aid drinkers... Everybody knows what that term means.
"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."
Maybe this is why outside the Beltway, Republicans are soured by our choice of candidates next year. There's nobody there to get excited about. I do like Newt Gingrich... Duncan Hunter is another possibility.
In this particular case, you did defend her. I didn't mean for that to be an attack on you... I originally said it in passing.
"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."
I hope our dear readers are getting a chuckle out of this... I had a rebuttal to Hillary's plan to take the oil profits and put them in a strategic reserve. You disagreed with my rebuttal. I've been sticking to the point and I've been following you into the weeds.
"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."
Here's where I believe we can reach common ground on this issue: If Hillary proposes bringing back that tax, I believe she will have that tax in the 90-100% range. With that, we can both say we are right. :-)
"I'm sorry. Maybe you should just search the BP since we discussed it here."
I still can't find it.
"Re-pub-lican. It's a term of endearment for party-line GOP droids."
Is that some Free Republic lingo??? Just call them Kool-Aid drinkers... Everybody knows what that term means.
"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."
Maybe this is why outside the Beltway, Republicans are soured by our choice of candidates next year. There's nobody there to get excited about. I do like Newt Gingrich... Duncan Hunter is another possibility.
posted by Andy W. Rogers | 12:13 AM
1 Comments:
Don't forget Tom Tancredo.
The focus should be to start now with determining the next Republican nominee. Elections are won and lost at the primary level not in the general election. If grassroots Republicans become active now we can counteract the Inside the Beltway crowd.
Post a Comment
<< Home