Originally Posted by Senator Hatrack
But if you want to go off on another long winded reply to something I did not don't let me stop you. In a way NW you remind me of Hubert H. Humphrey, a good man who I had the privilege to know, but one who could not say something in 100 words if he could so in 1,000 words.
How about this: You're Wrong. You are not only wrong, you are inconsistent. Let us move the goal post again? Previously you asserted
Originally Posted by Senator Hatrack
The idea behind the Electoral College is to force a Presidential candidate build a large coalition of voters from every state in the country.
Now you say
Originally Posted by Senator Hatrack
The Electoral College was not meant to force presidential candidates to campaign in every state.
You see, I hope, how one could see that as "inconsistent" and "moving the goalposts".

You assert that my post is
Originally Posted by Senator Hatrack
Another lecture. One that misses what my comments say.
when in fact, it was directly related to exactly the detail and substance of your post. I misquoted neither your post nor your citation. When I don't respond to links, you accuse me of "ignoring" them. When I refute them in detail, you accuse me of "lecturing". My friend, you really can't have it both ways.

A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich