"What different approach is he trying? The bumper sticker slogans and campaign rhetoric have all proven to be as thin as the paper they were first written on. I wont bother naming the dozens of examples as you obviously only know about the bumper stickers."
"How is quadrupling the deficit NOT Obama's fault? How is doing a complete 180* turn from his campaign promises NOT Obama's fault?"
"You made the decision to come into this section so obviously you thought it was worth debating. Dont get your panties in a bunch because everyone doesnt agree with you."
I would almost bet cash he won't answer these straight or just ignore them. If he acknowledges them then he just won't answer them and go off on something else.
I have never known a liberal to be able to back up their claims with anything more than vague references and circumstantial, at best, evidence. They also seem to avoid answering direct questions with direct answers.
I have never known a liberal to be able to back up their claims with anything more than vague references and circumstantial, at best, evidence. They also seem to avoid answering direct questions with direct answers.
Exactly, they'll change the subject faster than Congress had to read the health care bill but never answer directly.
I have never known a liberal to be able to back up their claims with anything more than vague references and circumstantial, at best, evidence. They also seem to avoid answering direct questions with direct answers.
When you don't pay attention to the facts yeah it does seem like a "liberal" doesn't back up their claim. Selective hearing (or reading) doesn't mean the other person doesn't know what they are talking about.
When you don't pay attention to the facts yeah it does seem like a "liberal" doesn't back up their claim. Selective hearing (or reading) doesn't mean the other person doesn't know what they are talking about.
Why dont you show where I didnt pay attention to the facts then.