The goal of arguing is not tying yourself to their construct but rather using it against them.
For instance I was asked by a high level fund raiser for the DNC, why I supported Sarah Palin. She isn't very intellectually curious.
I replied that if we wanted to get caught in the semantics of intelligence or conviction that I would choose with a conviction of principles that more closely match my own.
None of your candidates has a compass or an idea that will enable more people to improve their lives. In fact, all your candidates want to treat their constituents like children, tell them what is good for them(based on their or a committees subjective ideal) and in the end you pass laws restricting rights.
We want to hone freedom and broaden its availability by helping and encouraging more people to take the yoke of government and cast it aside for a better life.
The question I then proposed is how do any of your candidates propose to improve the lives of individual Americans. And remember, my friend the shill, the operative word for the day is INDIVIDUAL.
I just got back the usual mindless palaver George this, Republicans that.
To which I smile and said “Well there you are. A simple question about ideas and you go running about, with your hands in the air, assigning blame”. Any more bright ideas?
I say this with a smile so as not be offensive, since I am usually in someone Else's home and we are friends.
Friends with different ideas and no I have never had dinner with Ms. Bass. The other like her always direct their snide comment about people like me to someone else waiting for me to respond so they can say “Was I talking to you!?” and then pulling a whole list of get in your face techniques.
See the difference in strategy? I can assure you that Ms. Bass has the intellect of an adolescent and the backbone of a victim lying on their back.
You are friends?
I don’t think so. They may be YOUR friends, but you aren’t THEIR friends.
Friends wouldn’t treat you like that.