Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kulturkampf
... but instead of wasting my words like Kevin, I will just sum it up as:
McCain won the debate and is better than Obama because he is a Republican (though a wishy-washy one) (to sum up the reverse of what Kevin said).
McCain doesn't care about what Obama said, and Obama doesn't care abotu what McCain said ...
|
KK, the difference between you and the Omnivore is that your words are
always wasted, and very often poorly arranged (although I think that joke is now nearly as stale as your presence).
Now, I'm not sure if you know this, but you cannot "win a debate" or be "better than someone" simply by being a member of a political party. There doesn't even seem to be much debate going on here, just a bit of tactics-based mudslinging. The (very) embedded argument here seems to be whether the meetings should be bipartisan (McCain) or democratic (Obama). Do you follow that, or do you need to go back and do some reading?
Because it's pretty damn clear who has the stronger argument.
While I agree that McCain doesn't seem to care much about what Obama said, Obama does seem to care at least more about the issue than a disagreement with a colleague over how to approach it. He at the very least hasn't denounced his counterpart's sincerity based on one's preferred means of approach, which more or less just made McCain look like a big crybaby.
"My way or it's not bipartisan! YOU'RE A LIAR!"