Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (11213)	11/10/2009 10:34:47 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 42652

My previous points remain unrefuted You haven't made any points. "Points" are arguments. You just keep making and repeating the same assertion--that Obama is a radical. There is a difference between assertions and arguments. I have tried, without success, to convey to you via argument why your assertion is unwarranted. You, OTOH, have never offered any justifying argument, only continued assertions. So this is a one sided debate. You make assertions. I counter with arguments. You toss back some poorly targeted complaints about my counter and some diversions. Then you dig in and reassert. Your assertion has been refuted. You just haven't recognized or accepted it. The point remains that Obama is a radical He has surrounded himself with radicals. Did we not have a previous problem with sentence structure? What does that mean? Are they two separate sentences with a missing period? Are they independent statements, two separate assertions, or is there some connection? What should the reader infer re the connection? Is there an implied "because"? Is the second half intended to be a "point" AKA an "argument" explaining the first? If so, do you really think that's sufficient evidence? Enough evidence for the choir, I guess.