[rbmillerjr]

“I know you really, really want President Bush to be the cause of what happened in November, but you have to completely ignore that vast historic evidence in order to make your argument.”

Actually, the above poster was correct when he said that you constantly use straw man arguments. Most weak debaters use this technique.

You purposefully, and lazily ignore that I just commented that I agreed with the factors that you mentioned. However, it is you who consistently ingore the reality of a Pres. that was a poor communicator and had no resolve to sell the American people on a costly war. You lack proper argumentation technique.

Bush sycophant or not, you need to properly address the full argument.

[ohioWfan]

Interesting that you call me a weak debater when you have not even begun to address the historic factors in the election that refute your limited perspective.

Try to avoid the pitfalls of other posters in attacking me personally, and deal with the media worship of Obama, the economic crisis, the non-stop lying of Bush haters, the lack of a VP candidate, the incredible weakness of the 'moderate' McCain and his campaign against Bush and not Obama.....

Until you factor ALL of the issues, your persistence in blaming Bush's PR for that which it was, at very best only partially responsible, and factually, very minimally, makes your argument less than weak. It is indefensible.

I have addressed the full argument. It is you who have chosen to center on Bush and not the plethora of factual evidence refuting your narrow focus of blame.

[mad_as_he$$]

Actually arguing with OWF is like dealing with 4 year olds on the play ground. I actually thought the Viking Kitties had dispatched OWF about a year ago. Has not really posted for sometime - except at Wide Awakes which is oddly enough a snooze fest.