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?
So now your argument is that you never disagreed with me about anything I said?
Maybe you should figure out exactly what it is I said that you disagreed with, as opposed to what you thought I didn’t say in the way you wish I had said it.
Or maybe you have just proven my point, that if you actually disagree with something said, it’s better to just say what it is you disagree with, rather than complaining about how someone said it.
Because so far as I can tell now, your argument with me has been because I was insufficiently assertive in my comment about McCain being a career politician.
And I have no idea anymore what your complaint was about my statement that Hayworth isn’t the 2nd coming of Reagan. You say it is “unsupportable”, which implies that you think Hayworth IS the 2nd coming of Reagan, but before when I asked if that was what you meant, I was sure you said that’s not what you meant.
Maybe you could explain what exactly you thought was unsupportable.