No, I didn’t mean seriously that you were being paid. I guess I should’ve put in the </s> tag somewhere.
I was just making a general comment about the difficult to understand nature, or what I thought was sort of a zen / kung-fu quality, of your answer.
I’m going back over old comments. What is being made clear, or is being argued, really doesn’t matter, is that the belief that Palin boycotted CPAC wasn’t true, and the belief that she boycotted CPAC because of goproud wasn’t true either.
I picked up both of those ideas here, and I believed that that was the Conventional wisdom among the Palin supporters. The Conventional Wisdom among the Palin supporters was that it was good that Palin lost with 3%, because CPAC was a terrible progay place and everyone that went there was terrible, and the people who did better than most were actually the worst because Sarah didn’t have to stoop to getting votes from those horrible gays. This was the Palin supporters spin here. FudgePAC it was called. By the Palin supporters. I just assumed that the facts the supporters were throwing around were true.
Personally, I like Ron Paul and I also like Sarah Palin. Romney is completely unacceptable, and most of the others are almost as bad. Bachmann I like, DeMint I like.
The idea that 3% might’ve been a little on the low side, might’ve been a bit of a disappointment did not occur to the Palin supporters who were screaming FudgePAC on Saturday afternoon around 5pest.
Instead of sitting and thinking “what can I do to help Sarah Palin”, people have the tendency to just attack anyone who says anything negative about Sarah.
Zen and Kung-fu is sometimes needed with the jujitsu you just engaged in whereby your own misconceptions are the fault of anyone but yourself.