Three possibilities: (1) You didn't read my post, (2)You DO have a comprehension problem, (3) You enjoy being irrelevant. Which is it?
I say Guliani is a bad idea: You disagree, and tell me why Guliani is a bad idea.
And your attempted counterpunch that accuses me of having "hav[ing] a weak argument and/or flawed reasoning," also misses. Guliani's popularity was a big part of getting the convention to New York. Wether he is on the ticket or not, he is going to be a HUGE part of the convention, and the most important campaigner/fundraiser in NY. The Republicans did not have anybody of his stature in PA, so your example was irrelevant.
I trust that you already saw the flaws in your other counterpoints (Rev Al et al), which is why you let them go. Let the rest of it go as well. You are wrong. NY is winnable for the Republican party. This argument is not winnable for you.
No, to me Giuliani is irrelevant since Bush already has a VP. I took issue with you saying NY is "very winnable."
Which one of us has that comprehension problem?
You are wrong. NY is winnable for the Republican party. This argument is not winnable for you.
LOL! That's the way to debate! Well, I do find your screen name very appropriate, since you do seem to enjoy waving that Bravo Sierra flag.