(05-18-2020 11:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 11:15 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 10:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 10:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What about her previous private work and political career make you think she is a one-trick-pony?

Read the link in post 2412 again.

I was asking why you think she is a one-trick-pony. That really doesn't clear things up about your opinion of her, and it sounds like you'd prefer not to answer.

Your insistence (requirement?) here of an overt explanation is kind of hypocritical in light of your not-so-long ago non-reply on further explanation of your position that a moral stance on abortion is an assault on science.

I believe your pithy comment in that was: read my post.

Now you complain when someone says to read a post.

Sounds fun.

Do you know what OO's post was?

Post 2412: Abrams (a link to the puff piece)

All about race. Very vague on details.

That hardly provides any insight into OO's thinking about the topic - it's a commentary on an article, not the candidate. At least when I referenced a post for OO to read, it provide my own opinion on a matter, not one that isn't relevant.

So you say that the complaint is that the link 'hardly provides any insight in [his] thinking about the topic'.

*That* is a huge differentiator.... and I am not talking about this subject. I am talking about *your* studied refusal to 'provide[] any insight in [your] thinking about [that] topic'. Yep, major league differentiation..... lolz.

Actually your entire 'chastisement' above fits your skedaddle on the previous issue. Rich reply there, lad.