Reply #162: What in the world are you talking about?

[urgk]

I assume, since this comment points back to mine, that you're trying to argue with what I've said. If so, I hope this covers my defense -- Replacing what I've said with ridiculous exaggerations does not equal a valid debate point. Trying to borrow the emotional weight of Nazi references does not equal a valid debate point. While that brand of sarcasm may be entertaining, it does nothing to expand the discussion.

On the off-chance that it saves you the trouble of semi-paraphrasing and then arguing with your own interpretation of what I've said, let me reiterate: Unconditional cheerleading for Pelosi and Reid is of no help whatsoever. A post based entirely on encouraging such cheerleading is pure silliness. We should absolutely test every decision that the Democratic leadership makes against our individual insight into the way the world works, the facts we have at hand and the direction we feel the Democratic party should take. Pelosi and Reid may have made the absolute best choices possible under the circumstances. They may have screwed up royally and unforgivably. But neither of those cases is at issue here. What we're talking about is collectively agreeing to happily clap along and nod as they make decisions that affect the future of nearly everything.

If you disagree with any of those statements, please logically explain why and then I'll answer back with why I may or may not agree with your points. That's the way a conversation works.