[dmw]

And you are??? I didn't know I was talking to you. Are you representing
PSYCHO-FREEP?

Well, while you are here I will address your first comment (without being too prolixy) and then hopefully you can find someone else to confuse.

I never used the word "treasonous liberals" to anyone. If you have a problem with that description I suggest you go to the source. My point is STILL valid, don't vote for someone just because you got your feelings hurt over a couple of words. Is that so hard for you to understand, or are you another one of those sensitive liberals who when you get your feelings hurt decides to retaliate by voting for a liberal?

[youngjim]

And you are??? an interested observer and participant on this very long thread. Why do you ask?

PREMISE I never used the word "treasonous liberals" to anyone.

CONCLUSION My point is STILL valid, don't vote for someone just because you got your feelings hurt over a couple of words.

I don't want to confuse you, but this is called equivocation and its a common logical fallacy. In your premise you state X. Then your conclusion cites Y as true--with absolutely nothing to link X and Y but your banal fancy. As any decent judge would ask "Is there a question in there, or is counsel speculating?

PSYCHO-FREEP can answer you if he wants; educating the twits is yet another service I provide.