|
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
yeah, you don't want this to be about Obama. i get it.
Obama's answer to this guy's question is the distraction, right. even the question itself is a distration, right? you would rather this be about the plumber, no, i get it. funny though, was that was the context in which McCain brought him up in the debate. what's even funnier is somehow that context escapes you while you advocate the vetting of this man.
so what is the non sequitur here? i'll tell you
Joe the plumber's past party affiliations is a non sequitur
Joe the Plumbers potential vote is a non sequitur
Joe the plumber's divorce is a non sequitur.
Joe the Plumber's current income is a non sequitur.
Joe the Plumber's $1200 tax lien is a non sequitur.
Joe the Plumber's relationship with his neighbors is a non sequitur.
whatever criminal background Joe the Plumber has or doesn't have is a non sequitur
IOW Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher born December 3, 1973 is a non sequitur.
you realize you're entire argument advocating the vetting this guy is how many times his name was said during one debate? silly, almost childish IMO. |
So IOW, the person's background, shortcomings in the past, and "character" that defines him by his past actions are nothing shy of non sequiturs?
Excellent point, Q. Thanks for the ultimate irony.
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|