JJ: Sure -- as I said back in Jan-Feb, it's the economy, stupid. But then, why nominate the guy who knew least about it? Your argument at the time was, roughly, because he's a fighter. Now you say it wasn't worth fighting, we're all pussies, etc. Cartesian logic, JJ?
AI, my argument was never that McCain was a fighter. I thought and think the only chance the repubs had was to put up a moderate that could give a speech.
AI, my argument was never that McCain was a fighter.
Revising history, JJ? You always made a big point that Mac had been a fighter pilot. I maintain this was all along part of your spiel, up to late October, I'd say, when even you had to tone down your claim. I thought and think the only chance the repubs had was to put up a moderate that could give a speech.
BS. First of all, McCain could never give a speech. He's just terrible at it. And, at any rate, elections still hinge (at least in part) on some kind of substance --quite often, the perceived ability to handle the economy. And it was blindingly clear from the first debates and primaries that Mac was abysmal in that dept. As for "moderate", that's in the eyes of the beholder. To me, he's been for the past 10 years just another RINO (Republican in Name Only), kowtowing to the pinkos, in a vain attempt at gaining their respect and support. Rather pathetic, if you ask me. Your choice of Romney was beyond belief.
Oh, yeah? Prove it. With Mac, we now know beyond any shadow of a doubt he was a bumbling idiot and a loser. How can you be so sure about Mitt?
8 comments:
Chicken Jean-Francois Mac. Told you so, JJ.
Wouldm't've made any difference. Nous sommes tous pussies desormais.
Speak for yourself, JJ.
JJ: Sure -- as I said back in Jan-Feb, it's the economy, stupid. But then, why nominate the guy who knew least about it? Your argument at the time was, roughly, because he's a fighter. Now you say it wasn't worth fighting, we're all pussies, etc. Cartesian logic, JJ?
Nous sommes tous pussies desormais.
that would make life simpler in so many ways.
AI, my argument was never that McCain was a fighter. I thought and think the only chance the repubs had was to put up a moderate that could give a speech.
Your choice of Romney was beyond belief.
Hey, Romney's great. The more moonists/krishnists/mormons/zoroastrians in the republican party, the better we all are.
AI, my argument was never that McCain was a fighter.
Revising history, JJ? You always made a big point that Mac had been a fighter pilot. I maintain this was all along part of your spiel, up to late October, I'd say, when even you had to tone down your claim.
I thought and think the only chance the repubs had was to put up a moderate that could give a speech.
BS. First of all, McCain could never give a speech. He's just terrible at it. And, at any rate, elections still hinge (at least in part) on some kind of substance --quite often, the perceived ability to handle the economy. And it was blindingly clear from the first debates and primaries that Mac was abysmal in that dept. As for "moderate", that's in the eyes of the beholder. To me, he's been for the past 10 years just another RINO (Republican in Name Only), kowtowing to the pinkos, in a vain attempt at gaining their respect and support. Rather pathetic, if you ask me.
Your choice of Romney was beyond belief.
Oh, yeah? Prove it. With Mac, we now know beyond any shadow of a doubt he was a bumbling idiot and a loser. How can you be so sure about Mitt?
Post a Comment