Judy: > That's why I said "Never mind." You can't seem to > maintain integrity in a debate.
Me: And you can't resist taking a shot at me in what was otherwise a friendly discussion. It has nothing to do with integrity we are seeing it differently. You think you know what happened from his statements, and I don't think you do. You have added another story to the mix. We are just giving our POV's. Nobody knows who is lying and who is just wrong. Obviously this guy was not the only guy who prepped her. Maybe she was inconsistent in her ability to express her knowledge. My position is that we don't have all the facts. That includes you. My MCain point was not a straw man. It was an example of someone being sincerely wrong. I don't take MCain's word for it and I don't take this guy's word for it. You do? Ok, so you do. Why does that mean that I lack integrity? We'll see in time what it true. I am ready to accept that Palin knows that Africa is a continent and someone got it wrong or is being malicious once we get more information than we have now. You seem to think that this guy is the last word and I don't. No need to start flinging accusations about integrity because I don't share your confidence in this guy's opinion settles it all. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Judy, > > > > > > > > My response got eaten I think. I re-read it. A different > > > > republican from her accusers has a contradictory take on > > > > how much she knows. OK. > > > > > > Never mind. > > > > I don't know why you are blowing it off. You sent me back > > to re-read it, I did, and gave my opinion. Are you thinking > > that this guy is giving the definitive version? > > This is *the main guy* who was working with her > on foreign policy, speaking *on the record*. I > certainly give what he has to say more credibility > than some aides who were hanging around and don't > have the guts to speak for attribution. Especially > since he was able to reconstruct one part of the > conversation in detail and also describe the > situation at the time. His version sounds a whole > lot more plausible to me. > > And his comment on the Africa business echoes > what your Fox reporter said this morning: it was > just a fumble. It's one I'd be all too capable > of making myself in a similar situation. And > again, it's more *plausible* than that she really > thought Africa was a country rather than a > continent. > > > McCain thought she was ready to be > > president, I guess we should just take his word for it huh? > > Straw man time again. Did this guy say anything > about her being ready to be president, or are you > putting words in his (and my) mouth? > > That's why I said "Never mind." You can't seem to > maintain integrity in a debate. > > You ignored most of my other points. And you said, > "Or maybe they were as horrified as I was that she > got this close to the Vice presidency. Everyone is > assuming sinister motives, but someone trying to > give more full disclosure on the bullet we just > dodged is serving their country well." > > Not when they do so *anonymously*, they aren't. > > Given what we know of her, would her knowing the > NAFTA countries and that Africa was a continent > mean that she was any more ready to be president > than we thought she was? No, of course not. This > is just petty, vicious sniping intended to make > her look like a total idiot, which she's not. >
