YOU might decide not to be so thin skinned.
But maybe not.
With your post, which will fade by tomorrow, you have shown your shallowness.
Happy about that?
http://radaractive.blogspot.com/...k-in-
nasty.html
Yeah, I said that this is the moment that Obama's campaign "jumped the shark", hahaha! I say he is either too stupid or too nasty to be President!
Mike,
You should get over that sweetie
The "pig" he's referring to is 8 years of failed Bush policies. It's clear as can be in the clip you posted. Why on Earth would he be talking about Palin as the pig?
I've seen the entire clip. What you're ignoring as is just about everyone in the media is, would be that Obama also went on to make a joke about being old. Anyone that's been paying attention knows that Palin made the lipstick joke a mere week ago and that Obama's supporters have derided McCain as being too old. Let's also not forget Obama blew off a newsreporter and said "sweetie" and told Hillary's supporters, then need to just get over it.
It's rather entertaining to watch Obama supporters ignore those points, yet other Obamatons try to read into nearly every commercial and speech from McCain/Palin, some hidden racial code.
The immediate reaction of Obama's supporters in the video is also instructive.
Taken all together, I still see no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Obama has a tin ear for public discourse, awkward delivery, nnd is nearly as bad as JEan Fraud Kerry about "nuance". That said, the hoopla about the lipstik/pig remark is all misaimed. The proper aim for opponents of The Obamassiah's loopy message is his misrepresentation of the content of the McCain/Palin platform. The McCain campaign's ad answering this was so off topic and off-target and disingenuous in its misuse of the Couric comment that I wanted to strangle whoever was responsible for it.
*sigh*
Oh, well, maybe God does protect fools and the United States of America...
Again, why on Earth would he be talking about Palin as the pig? I don't see how you answered that question at all.
Palin did make the lipstick joke, and Obama (either consciously or subconsciously, doesn't matter) riffed on that by using a common enough saying that plays on the use of that word.
If you want to stretch the analogy, you could say that he is likening Palin to the lipstick, but there's just no reasonable way to twist the meaning of what he said into referring to Palin as the pig. If there is, please lay it out for me.
Next: where is the joke about being old? Is that after the part to which you posted a transcript? Or did you perhaps mean the reference to an old fish? Again, as is crystal clear from the context, that's about the failed Bush policies, not about McCain.
If you want to liken yourself to "Obamatons" looking for a hidden racial code, you may be on to something.
Why on earth?...
Anyone paying attention knows Obama can be a condescending prick. There are examples. And/or he's just that clumsy off teleprompter, there are examples of that as well.
common enough saying that plays on the use of that word
No one is saying that it is not common. The issue is Palin having used it only a week before. Your point is irrelevant.
If you want to stretch...
You havent demonstrated a stretch. You've given no reason to give Obama the benefit of the doubt either.
reference to an old fish?
Yes, and that pairing, lipstick and old, along with Obama's past comments to Hillary, her supporters and that female reporter, work against giving Obama the benefit of the doubt.
If you want to liken yourself
This is far from hidden and I'm not the one unwilling to admit that Obama might not be perfect.
Thanks for the demonstration of blind faith in your prophet. It's been entertaining.
So Mark, you still never answered creeper's question about how palin is the pig in the analogy.
"Benefit of the doubt"? What doubt?
Look, if you have a situation in which there is
1. a plain reading of a saying that is being used in the same way it has been used before, including by others (in this case even McCain, who used the phrase in a similar context involving Hillary Clinton), and that makes sense in context, and
2. a created/invented reading of that same saying of which nobody can explain how it would even make sense and which would split that saying from its meaning, even though that meaning fits into the context, and that is a complete non-sequitur,
the so-called "benefit of the doubt" (as if there can even be any reasonable doubt when you look at the clip) naturally goes to the former option.
That has nothing to do with any kind of blind faith or being unwilling to admit that Obama might not be perfect, as you so unreasonably try to caricature my comments here. I think Obama is not perfect, and Obama too reminds his audiences of that just about every day.
But you don't have to put Obama on a pedestal to understand the plain meaning of what he said here and to be able to look at a few sentences in context.
You fail to see the stretch? The stretch is that you (and others) are trying to impose a different and quite nonsensical meaning onto an accepted saying, even though you can't even explain how that imposed meaning would make sense in any way whatsoever. That's why you have to keep dodging the question - and until you do, it seems that you've come to realize that it really doesn't make any sense at all. But feel free to surprise me with your cogent explanation.
Which past comments of Obama to Hillary and her supporters are you referring to, btw?
lava,
Are you that uninformed that it must be explained to you? Palin, merely a week before, had made a joke about herself/hockey moms being a pit bull with lipstick.
creeper,
I've already explained quite clearly why I don't give benefit of the doubt to Obama. Try removing your bias blinders and reading it again, slowly.
McCain's use of the term is not comparable as Hillary had not recently made a joke about herself and lipstick on any animal.
The rest of your "argument" requires accepting that an old phrase can never be used in a different manner. That's just laughably false.
Your claim to non-sensical simply fails and requires quit a bit of effort on your part to make that claim.
Pay attention this time:
Lipstick - Palin made a similar joke, recently.
Old fish - McCain has been said to be too old, many times.
The above, with Obama's record of condescending remarks to women/about women and his campaigns disparaging of Palin, "she's pretty", "mayor of a small town" provide plenty of reason to not give Obama the benefit of the doubt.
You've done nothing to direclty address my points except to indicate you didn't read or don't comprehend.
Why should I take it any differently than his supporters at that event take it?
If you don't have anything new, quit wasting your time, as I'm getting tired of repeating what you have yet to address.
"I've already explained quite clearly why I don't give benefit of the doubt to Obama. Try removing your bias blinders and reading it again, slowly."
I did, and I can still not see any way in which that line can be perceived as referring to Palin as the pig. And you appear categorically unable or unwilling to come up with any reasonable explanation in which it could be perceived that way.
"The rest of your "argument" requires accepting that an old phrase can never be used in a different manner. That's just laughably false."
Laughably false... as well as a strawman argument, seeing as I did not make such an argument. Yes, old phrases can in general be used in different manners, but in this case the meaning of the familiar phrase was entirely in context, and in that context it made sense, whereas the meaning that some (like yourself) are trying to impose on it does NOT make sense in context.
"Your claim to non-sensical simply fails and requires quit a bit of effort on your part to make that claim."
On what basis does it fail? If it is not nonsensical, then why are you consistently unable to explain the sense of it?
And no, it doesn't take a whole lot of effort to write down simple and obvious facts, though it is tedious that I have to spell them out in that kind of detail for you.
"Lipstick - Palin made a similar joke, recently."
No, she didn't make a similar joke, she made a completely different joke that included the same word. Yes, Obama, whether consciously or unconsciously, riffed on that word, since it had become a bit of a meme, by using it in a different, but familiar phrase that also perfectly fit the context of what he was talking about.
"Old fish - McCain has been said to be too old, many times."
By whom, Obama? When and where?
And now we can't use the word old in other contexts or sayings anymore?
"The above, with Obama's record of condescending remarks to women/about women and his campaigns disparaging of Palin, "she's pretty", "mayor of a small town" provide plenty of reason to not give Obama the benefit of the doubt."
I asked you which past comments of Obama to Hillary and her supporters you were referring to. You seem to be dodging the answer.
"You've done nothing to direclty address my points except to indicate you didn't read or don't comprehend."
I've responded to your claim that there was doubt that he used a common saying in the usual way in great detail, as well as your allegation that Obama made some past comments to Hillary and her supporters (to which you have yet to respond). Please point out what you think I missed and I'll respond to it.
In the meantime, you're still dodging two questions:
1. Why would he be talking about Palin as the pig, and in what way can what he said be perceived to refer to Palin as the pig? I've said that it is possible to interpret Palin being the lipstick,
My previous comment appears to have been chopped off, so here's the end part again:
In the meantime, you're still dodging two questions:
1. Why would he be talking about Palin as the pig, and in what way can what he said be perceived to refer to Palin as the pig? I've said that it is possible to interpret Palin being the lipstick, but the pig? How?
2. Which past comments of Obama to Hillary and her supporters were you referring to?
"Why should I take it any differently than his supporters at that event take it?"
And how do you know how they took it, seeing as you're probably not a mindreader? All you know was that they laughed. Not surprising since Obama just turned Palin's lipstick joke against the McCain/Palin campaign.
"If you don't have anything new, quit wasting your time, as I'm getting tired of repeating what you have yet to address."
Am I supposed to take it that you have no intention of answering the questions posed earlier? That would amount to you conceding the point.
I don't concede any point to you by noting that you force repetition by falsely claiming that I haven't said something. That's a pretty cheap trick to try and claim victory with, but coming from you, I'm not suprised.
To respond to your questions - again
1. Lipstick - Palin made a similar joke, recently. Since you claim to not understand, I'll explain further. Palin compared herself to an animal - pitbull. She did not compare herself to the lipstick.
Old fish - McCain has been said to be too old, many times.
Even an AP reporter noted the audience reaction and this also includes the old fish line
"You can put lipstick on a pig," he said to an outbreak of laughter, shouts and raucous applause from his audience, clearly drawing a connection to Palin's joke. "It's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still going to stink after eight years." (source)
2. I mentioned those already as well, in my first reply to you in this discussion.
"Let's also not forget Obama blew off a newsreporter and said "sweetie" and told Hillary's supporters, then need to just get over it."
But I'll add more.
Several more are noted here and here
We are not going to agree on this if you keep coming back with the same bs. The problem is that all you have is either incredibly stupidity or intellectual dishonesty on your side. You also seem to be confusing persuasion with providing a reasonable argument. Simply because the first has not been achieved, because of a person's willful choice, does not mean the latter has not occurred.
1) I don't see any fault in playing off of someone else's rhetorical device ("pitbull with lipstick") to challenge their major platform with a similar-sounding yet completely different-meaning rhetorical device ("lipstick on a pig").
2) I think you're looking too literal into the metaphors. But I know you lack the substance to challenege party platforms and actual policies, so you're reduced to arguing over the minor quips that come about.
"I don't concede any point to you by noting that you force repetition by falsely claiming that I haven't said something."
No false claim - as anyone reading this comment section can clearly see, despite being asked several times, you have not given any reasonable explanation for how that line could be perceived as referring to Palin as the pig, which means you're either unwilling or unable to do so.
Whether unwilling or unable, it amounts to a concession on your part.
1. Lipstick - Palin made a similar joke, recently. Since you claim to not understand, I'll explain further. Palin compared herself to an animal - pitbull. She did not compare herself to the lipstick."
I didn't claim not to understand, I pointed out that it was not a similar joke, but a completely different one (actually "lipstick on a pig" is not a joke, but a folksy saying) that featured the same word.
If Palin wants to compare herself to a pitbull, fine. That does not make her the pig in a different saying in a different context.
"Old fish - McCain has been said to be too old, many times."
So now we can't use the word "old" in any way to refer to Bush/McCain policies?
"Even an AP reporter noted the audience reaction and this also includes the old fish line
"You can put lipstick on a pig," he said to an outbreak of laughter, shouts and raucous applause from his audience, clearly drawing a connection to Palin's joke. "It's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still going to stink after eight years." (source)
That's exactly right, he "drew a connection to Palin's joke" and turned it back on McCain and Palin. We can't read the audience's mind, but Obama flipping the lipstick meme in such a way was certainly worth an audience reaction. But how does that support the notion of Palin being the pig in that scenario?
"2. I mentioned those already as well, in my first reply to you in this discussion.
"Let's also not forget Obama blew off a newsreporter and said "sweetie" and told Hillary's supporters, then need to just get over it.""
Could you provide a link to where Obama said something like "just get over it" to Hillary supporters? All I'm finding is that he apologized to the reporter in question. ("That's a bad habit of mine. [...] I mean no disrespect and so I am duly chastened on that front")
"But I'll add more. Several more are noted here and here"
The first link has no comments by Obama to Hillary and her supporters at all, and the second one is about Obama's "likeable enough" line. Not sure how that's supposed to support your interpretation of "lipstick on a pig" as calling Palin a pig.
"We are not going to agree on this if you keep coming back with the same bs. The problem is that all you have is either incredibly stupidity or intellectual dishonesty on your side. You also seem to be confusin
Chopped off again. Here's the rest:
"We are not going to agree on this if you keep coming back with the same bs. The problem is that all you have is either incredibly stupidity or intellectual dishonesty on your side. You also seem to be confusing persuasion with providing a reasonable argument. Simply because the first has not been achieved, because of a person's willful choice, does not mean the latter has not occurred."
You have a point there: I've provided a reasonable argument, but you remain unpersuaded, though you're unable to come up with a reasonable explanation for your claim. And seeing as you can't even come up with a simple explanation for how that line could even be perceived as Palin being a pig, it's you who is falling way short of being persuasive.
Hey, this is interesting.
If Obama is being sexist, then McCain was sexist when he called Hillary Clinton's healthcare policy "lipstick on a pig".
http://www.swamppolitics.com/
new...lth_plan_a.html
McCain criticized Democratic contenders for offering what he called costly universal health care proposals that require too much government regulation. While he said he had not studied Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton's health-care plan, he said it was "eerily reminiscent" of the failed plan she offered as first lady in the early 1990s.
"I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig," he said of her proposal.
Please be consistent.
Although, now that you've made me think about this a little more, isn't it awful that Palin is calling hockey moms pitbulls? I don't know if it's sexist per se, but it sure is insulting.
Well creeper, that's worse than your previous arguments. The joke she made speaks to being tenacious and tough, which are compliments with a tad of self-deprecating humor tossed in. Or are you saying that Barack is calling himself a pig? 
As for all that preceded it, we clearly are not going to agree on who has actually provided reasonable argument. Since we're at the repeat, repeat and repeat again stage, how about we agree to disagree, before we both get hauled off for cruelty to a horse carcass?
"Well creeper, that's worse than your previous arguments. The joke she made speaks to being tenacious and tough, which are compliments with a tad of self-deprecating humor tossed in. Or are you saying that Barack is calling himself a pig?"
No, because Palin directly compared hockey moms and pitbulls ("What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull?"), while Obama used a metaphor in which the pig represents failed Bush/McCain policies. For some reason you're having a really hard time unraveling what is actually pretty straightforward.
Curiouser and curiouser. Your intense desire to put words in Obama's mouth is causing you to come up with some very strange conclusions. Could you come up with any reasonable explanation in which Barack could be calling himself the pig in that scenario? Course not.
"As for all that preceded it, we clearly are not going to agree on who has actually provided reasonable argument. Since we're at the repeat, repeat and repeat again stage, how about we agree to disagree, before we both get hauled off for cruelty to a horse carcass? "
Fine, slink away. I note that you have repeatedly avoided the question "Why would he be talking about Palin as the pig, and in what way can what he said be perceived to refer to Palin as the pig?" - and you certainly haven't "repeat, repeat, repeated" it. Your concession that you're either unwilling or unable to come up with such an answer is accepted.
Among other things, you need to learn what agree to disagree means.
And once again you're confusing persuasion with providing a reasonable argument. Simply because the first has not been achieved, because of a person's willful choice, does not mean the latter has not occurred.
You haven't persuaded me one bit, by your criteria, that means you have offered nothing to support your claims and our just too stubborn to let it go.
I'll give you this, you're a pretty good troll.
"Among other things, you need to learn what agree to disagree means."
I'm well aware of what it means, but since you never even attempted to make an argument to explain how that line could possibly be perceived in the way that you claimed, you're not agreeing to disagree, you simply failed to show up.
"And once again you're confusing persuasion with providing a reasonable argument. Simply because the first has not been achieved, because of a person's willful choice, does not mean the latter has not occurred."
If by the latter (the reasonable argument) you mean your argument, then you're right that just because you have not persuaded me does not mean that you have not made a reasonable argument. That statement unto itself is logically correct.
However, there is a simpler way to reach the conclusion that you have not made a reasonable argument, and that is this one: by simply observing that you have not made that reasonable argument as to how that line could be perceived as you claim. That is plain to see to anyone looking at this comment thread. And since you can't back up your claim, but refuse to budge from your claim, it's clear that you are the unreasonably stubborn one.
If you disagree, feel free to point out where you think you explained how that line could be read that way.
"You haven't persuaded me one bit, by your criteria, that means you have offered nothing to support your claims and our just too stubborn to let it go."
You know, you've got a peculiar mental habit of reading whatever you feel like into perfectly clear sentences presented to you in plain English. Where on Earth do you think I said that if one person is not persuaded, then the other did not offer a reasonable argument?
"I'll give you this, you're a pretty good troll."
Just because I disagree with you and you are unable to come up with a rational explanation for your position does not make me a troll.
I'm well aware of what it means
LOL - then you wouldn't be repeating your claims - again.
Just because I disagree with you and you are unable to come up with a rational explanation for your position does not make me a troll.
This would be why I think you're stupid or intellectually dishonest, possibly both. The troll part comes in with the addition of other matters.
I note that you have not once been able or willing to offer a reasonable explanation of how that line could be read as referring to Palin as a pig.
Call me names all you want (and feel free to point out where you think I was intellectually dishonest), but it is clear that you've conceded the central claim of your post from the get go, yet lack the basic dignity to retract or correct it.
Thanks for the laugh - again.
Let me step aside from agreeing with Creeper (and common sense) to Mark's side. I will attempt to answer the questions Mark has never been able to or has been unwilling to(to the best of my abilities, because this is certainly a stretch).
Q1: "Why would he be talking about Palin as the pig,..."
A1: Because Obama is a horrible person, he hates America, and is just looking to smear Palin. We all know if you call someone a pig, people won
’t vote for him/her(same with calling someone old). People will surely jump over to Obama’s side for childish antics and name calling and not criticize him for those actions. Point in fact: my fifth grade class election was won by a boy who called the girl running against him a frog(though, I think we can all agree an amphibious insult is much worse than a purely terrestrial insult).
Q2: "...and in what way can what he said be perceived to refer to Palin as the pig?"
A2: First Palin called herself a bulldog with lipstick. Then Obama called the bush/mccain policies of the last 8 years a pig, and said mccain was just putting lipstick on that pig. Despite this being a somewhat common folksy phrase, probably off the cuff and not relating to Palin at all, it was really a reference back to Palin
’s comments about the bulldog w/ lipstick. Obama being a skilled orator, deliberately chose those words (lipstick on a pig) to imply Palin is not in fact a bulldog, but rather a pig, under the guise of talking about something that may actually be relevant in the campaign(political policies). Brilliant trick by Obama, but he isn’t smart enough to out think me. To take this one step further, I believe this skilled orator was really referring to the fact that pigs do not have sweat glands (this is a dig at her Alaska residency). Here, he was really trying to say to the people of California, the southwest, deep south, and south east that Palin, coming from a cold weather state, does not understand the needs of the warm weather states. Absolutely cunning move by Obama, but yet again, he is not smart enough to get this one past me.
I hope this clears things up.
Mark: you really think creeper is being a troll? Wiki defines a troll “as is someone who posts controversial and irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.” I believe he is pretty on topic, and your posts, which often contain personal digs and insults, border more on troll-dom.
With much love,
Lava
I rest your case.
Sorry to interrupt the circle jerk
Lava, I'll give you one 1/8 of my laughter at you and laugh with you for being much more clever than creeper. However, you are just repeating his false claims about whether or not I have responded and that's a simple fact.
Also, troll has a much broader definition and includes:
"the practice of playing a seriously misinformed or deluded user"
Now, if you and creeper want to say you're not trolling, fine. But with both of you beating a thoroughly dead horse, and even after creeper claimed to know what agree to disagree means, it only removes the word playing and leaves one to conclude you both actually are seriously misinformed or deluded.
With much love.
PS if you both continue to jerk each other in circular fashion, please clean up afterwards, k.
"However, you are just repeating his false claims about whether or not I have responded and that's a simple fact"
My claim was that you have not provided a reasonable explanation for how that line could be perceived as referring to Palin as the pig. It's not a false claim, since you have provided no such explanation. Read or look at Obama's speech and, given their context, explain how those words could be taken to mean that.
Now you say that it is a simple fact that you have responded. Could you please point out where? Because I'm not seeing it in the comment thread here.
Your insistence on name-calling is not a substitute for simply addressing the question at hand. On the contrary, it makes it pretty clear that you've surrendered any pretext of being able or willing to defend this issue, but you lack the grace and dignity to admit that in public. Any reader of this comment thread can see that my comments are neither misinformed nor deluded, though it is possible to characterize your claim that Obama called Palin a pig in that way. So again, as Lava suggested, the charge of trolldom would apply more to you.
My claim was that you have not provided a reasonable explanation
As I said, we are not going to agree on what is reasonable and not reasonable, but keep beating that horse carcass, if your sad little life needs that.
And the insults are not a substitute, they're in addition to my already having replied to these questions.
Where, then, do you think you have supplied any explanation of any kind whatsoever (reasonable, unreasonable, written with invisible ink, whatever) for how that line could be perceived as referring to Palin as the pig?
Keep stalling, keep dodging... it's clear you have no answer.
It's not like my previous comments are invisible.
A stall, a dodge. What a surprise.
Exactly, your previous comments are visible and there for all to see.
So why not answer the question: where do you think you supplied any explanation of any kind for how that line could be perceived as referring to Palin as the pig?
A stall, a dodge. What a surprise.
What suprise that you display your idiocy again.
Exactly, your previous comments are visible and there for all to see.
Yes and people can see I've provided what has been asked for.
So why not answer the question: where do you think you supplied any explanation of any kind for how that line could be perceived as referring to Palin as the pig?
I did, you and lava are just too willfully blind to see it.
Thanks for the entertainment and increasing my blog traffic though.
What, your lame evasions are increasing your blog traffic? You must have been really hurting, if a bunch of comments like this have a noticeable impact on your traffic. Whoah.
"I did, you and lava are just too willfully blind to see it."
Then why are you so coy to point out where you think you made such an argument? If you had any confidence at all in your argument, you'd simply point it out.
What, your lame evasions are increasing your blog traffic? You must have been really hurting, if a bunch of comments like this have a noticeable impact on your traffic. Whoah.
No, it's your repeated idiocy. I don't add to it by replying to stupid people such as yourself. And I guess you forgot basic arithmetic, even 0 + 1 is an increase.
Then why are you so coy to point out where you think you made such an argument? If you had any confidence at all in your argument, you'd simply point it out.
It's quite easy to find. However, you've been saying that I havent replied ever since I have, even after I repeated myself, so I see no reason to point out anything other than, reread the discussion. That's what you get for being a clueless ass.
You can keep asking this question again and again, as you already have, but you're just going to get the same answer from me.
Mark,
It's quite easy to find. However, you've been saying that I havent replied ever since I have, even after I repeated myself, so I see no reason to point out anything other than, reread the discussion.
The question is, how is Palin the pig in Obama’s use of Lipstick on a Pig?
When you say you explained it, are you talking about this explanation:
(responding to radar)I've seen the entire clip. What you're ignoring as is just about everyone in the media is, would be that Obama also went on to make a joke about being old. Anyone that's been paying attention knows that Palin made the lipstick joke a mere week ago and that Obama's supporters have derided McCain as being too old. Let's also not forget Obama blew off a newsreporter and said "sweetie" and told Hillary's supporters, then need to just get over it.
Or this one:
(answering my question about the lipstick comment/Palin being the pig) Are you that uninformed that it must be explained to you? Palin, merely a week before, had made a joke about herself/hockey moms being a pit bull with lipstick.
Or this one:
1. Lipstick - Palin made a similar joke, recently. Since you claim to not understand, I'll explain further. Palin compared herself to an animal - pitbull. She did not compare herself to the lipstick.
I
’m really having trouble finding an explanation that logically lays out the reasoning of your argument. You just jump and basically in and of itself Obama’s comment calls Palin a pig. I just can’t see how the use of “lipstick on a pig” when referring to the bush policies Obama is saying aren’t going to change with a McCain administration is a dig at Palin. And yes, I realize that she used lipstick in referring to herself as a pitbull. How Palin would be referred to as a pig in this situation is a little baffling to me.
The personal attacks, though amusing, don
’t really make up for your lack of reasoning or logic.
Best,
Lava
Yes Lava, those would be the answers that creeper somehow can't see. You missed the number of examples of Obama being condescending and links I provided for those.
Yes, I know that you don't think what I say is reasonable, but thanks for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that contrary to what creeper has been saying I did reply, several times, and it was quite easy to find.
Finally, just because you and creeper don't see how it's possible (creeper can't even see the replies) is not the same thing as an argument lacking logic or reasoning. In fact, my argument consists of noting Obama's past condescending remarks to women, (his campaign has added more since then) the additional use of old fish, and with the lipstick matches the pairing of Palin/McCain. It's pretty obvious that McCain wouldn't be newspaper which is another reason to think Palin isn't the lipstick. There is also the AP reporters take on the matter and how the crowd reacted. All in all, I actually gave reasons while you just reply with "is ... baffling to me" and creeper claims I never provided an answer.
And as you have shown, my insults to creeper are in addition to having answered the questions. You're "is ... baffling to me" does nothing to show how my argument is contrary to reason or logic.
So again, we just have to agree to disagree.
It will be hilarious if creeper still tries to say I never provided any answers.
You didn't provide answers.
lava
That's quite foolish of you, when you just copied and pasted several of my answers and merely claimed they lacked logic, while not demonstrating how that was so - "is ...baffling to me" says more about you than anything.
I'm surprised, but you beat creeper to providing me with a laugh.
Then this is your logic:
Palin used a phrase with lipstick/bulldog referring to herself.
Obama used a phrase lipstick on a pig referring to Bush/McCain policies.
Therefore, Obama called Palin a pig.
This does not make sense.
Lava
That is not my argument.
The second premise is yours, not mine.
That it doesn't make sense is because you've flopped into the strawman fallacy.
Thanks for playing.
Ok. I'm done.
Lava
Commenting by HaloScan
