You argued against my statement that McCain was a fixture in DC, while never explaining why you thought it was wrong (and it certainly is right, the guy has been there forever).
You argued against my statement that Hayworth isn’t the 2nd coming of Reagan, but never said he was, and implied that you agreed that he wasn’t.
So in the two statements I made that you argued with, both statements were right, and you didn’t say anything to suggest they were wrong.
Instead, you went off on some witch-hunt.
I did not argue against it I said it was a milquetoast characterization.
You argued against my statement that Hayworth isn’t the 2nd coming of Reagan, but never said he was, and implied that you agreed that he wasn’t.
No, I didn't do that either. I said it was an unsupportable assertion. I never said or implied that you were saying he was. Truth difficult for you?