Do the Republics not realize their talking points were so obvious?

[Ziggurat]

Twisting the facts to fit your reality, Zig?

After your previous exercise in creative fiction to explain what he said, that's a pretty ironic accusation for you to be making.

Obama's comments about car insurance demonstrate that he's clueless about insurance. You tried to argue that he meant something completely different, but 1) he clearly didn't mean what you said he meant (which is perhaps why you've abandoned that line of argument), 2) what he said is counterproductive to the point you claimed he meant, and 3) that wouldn't have fixed the problem of his display of ignorance.

Now, why do you think it might matter whether or not the President has a basic grasp of the concept of insurance?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My post actually had nothing to do with the "death panel" issue. I wasn't defending the term, nor am I interested in trying to. It's not a dodge to not discuss something that's irrelevant to what you're interested in. My point was purely about Skeptic Ginger's posting, and what seems to motivate her. Now, do you have any comments about what I actually said, or do you just want your opinion of "death panels" to be known?

I see. So now that that particular talking point lie has been too exposed to continue using effectively, you revert to self defense mode and claim it never mattered.


So what are we back to then, some little analogy Obama used in an all day conference? Like that's a big deal?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

BTW, Olbermann's "emotional rant" was emotional because it was about his dying father!!!!!!!!!!

Not because he was ranting at the Republic liars.

 

[Ziggurat]

I see. So now that that particular talking point lie has been too exposed to continue using effectively, you revert to self defense mode and claim it never mattered.

It never mattered to me. Would you like to provide evidence that it did?

So what are we back to then, some little analogy Obama used in an all day conference? Like that's a big deal?

You're right, I guess it's not a big deal that Obama is clueless about insurance. But the fact that Republicans decide to use the same phrases when making their points? Teh horror!

 

[Cobalt]

Not because he was ranting at the Republic liars.

Why on earth are you doing something so...childish and petty as calling Republicans "Republics?"

Yeah, I saw your sig. It merely states your childish and petty reasoning.

 

[tyr_13]

Of course not. But if your speculation is wrong, I'm going to tell you it's wrong. If Skeptic Ginger is interested, she is free to come back and tell us why she said what she said.

Which I see you've ignored.

Surely you aren't suggesting that any speculation about the thought processes of other posters constitutes an ad hominem attack. That would be as ridiculous as claiming that such speculation can never be.

Well that's a downright silly thing to say as I've already said that is not what I believe. I do however see this specific speculation as constituting ad hominem. Why do you ask? Because you speculate that her motivations are emotional. I happen to agree. That doesn't make her motivation relevant and it doesn't make her argument wrong. I'm sure she's completely aware of how emotional this subject makes her.

Because it's interesting to me, as I already said. So unless you want to claim I'm lying, the reason was already made explicit. When have any of us needed any reason other than "it's interesting" to post about anything here?

You're not lying, you're rationalizing. I'm simply pointing out that you aren't engaged in the nuanced and level-headed defense of the Republicans as you thought you were.

I don't doubt it. That still leaves us with the question of why she thinks that an emotional rant is the most persuasive argument she could find, and why categorizing it as such is the best way to advertise its persuasiveness.

What do you think now that she has answered that question? I'm sure you realize what a trap this is because emotional rants are used so often by both sides.

No, tyr. I've done that too. I refer you to earlier posts in the thread, in particular #43, 63, and 68.

But you've accused Skeptic Ginger of not engaging in a discussion of the Republican talking points in a post where she did exactly that. Once again...

It is interesting that you chose a nitpicky pseudo-psychological analysis of word choice rather than the actual content of the argument. In fact, you've said that you aren't talking about the actual content of the argument at all. This is doubly interesting because there was actual content in the post you've analyzed contained what you've asserted was missing. Perhaps not 'nuanced' but still there.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It never mattered to me. Would you like to provide evidence that it did?



You're right, I guess it's not a big deal that Obama is clueless about insurance. But the fact that Republicans decide to use the same phrases when making their points? Teh horror!

You are claiming Obama's single reference to an insurance anecdote in an all day conference is proof he is, "clueless about insurance".

Pretty weak evidence there, Zig.