No offense, but I have been around long enough to recall when he wasn’t considered a problem child.
If he persists in insisting that his emotionally based argument be given credence, then I have identified the logical fallacy he has used. Perhaps that will be useful for other FReepers.
If he presents a cogent argument that shows Bachmann to be substantially better than Palin, then perhaps my attempts at reason will have found usefulness through another route.
But, he is not the only one who has presented an emotional argument. Let’s argue facts, not emotion.
In the end, I may have wasted my time - but only if nobody benefits from the cold, logical review of the arguments that have been presented.
Have a good evening, FRiend.
There may be a problem with your assumption, the assumption being you are speaking to someone in a simple debate.
The man is not interested in debate, rather he is only interested in his own personal agenda. When he has one, he goes to great lengths to spread it, beyond emotion, beyond what a normal rational poster ought to do.
I'm relatively convinced he is one of two things. 1. He's possibly a Moby, who loves to sow deceit and division. 2. He's truly short a few parts in gray matter and emotional stability. A combination of these two is quite possible. Trying to be rational in the face of those alternatives makes no sense to me.
You can debate and give reasons till the earth runs out of oxygen, and you will get nowhere.
Insofar as his backing of Bachmann, if you have seen his posts then you know he doesn't back her as much as he simply backs anyone that will help his agenda to take down Sarah Palin. Bachmann just happens to be the reason du jour for him right now.