View Single Post
      06-06-2012, 01:27 PM   #12
MiddleAgedAl
First Lieutenant
21
Rep
326
Posts

 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sitting down, facing the keyboard

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar View Post
Here's the entire sentence, Mr. Fair & Balanced:
" Barack Obama defeated John McCain in Wisconsin on Tuesday, a state that has not gone Republican in 24 years but that Democrats barely won in the past two presidential elections."
So tell me, why do surrogates keep answering for evosM3?
Seriously? If you are interested in picking more snippets from the article, why did you leave out: "Obama captured 10 electoral votes with the win on his way to winning the presidency. He won huge in the state's two largest counties, getting 70% of the vote in both Milwaukee and Dane counties."

The fact remains, Wisconsin is NOT a red state, nor has it been for decades. 70% of the vote in the largest counties means that there are lots of people who leaned left, (in 2008 at least, when hope and change seemed so promising).

I cant speak for others, but I am not acting as a surrogate for EvosM3.

I was trying to make a point that it seems when people express an opinion which differs from yours (as they have every right to do), you seem to abnormally quick to attack them personally, suggesting that they cannot comprehend information. As I have pointed out in the post above, you are equally guilty at poorly comprehending information. Somehow, when they do so, they are either racist, or stupid, but I guess when you do so, instead of admitting you have erred, and that you live in a glass house yourself, you desparately grasp at meaningless distinctions, such as clinging to the word "barely" in the USA Today article. Sounds like a frantic 16 year old boy telling his parents, "but I BARELY got her pregnant", as if that makes any difference.

I can appreciate that it must be very alarming for you to see people in blue states exhibiting red voting behaviour, just like the congressional races a couple of years ago, but believe me, you'll win more respect by attacking the argument, not the person rendering the argument. I guess if the only game you have is to shoot the messenger rather than the message itself, then that must be a desparate place to be.