- Ok Mr Semantics.
I love how everyone assumes that someone is resorting to semantics when they point out what was plainly stated in a post. It appears to be some sort of default defense that many people resort to when they've realized they've misspoken. To set the record straight, semantics deals with the meanings of words, and in particular how those meanings change over time, as well as how they can be viewed by different people.
I never pointed to anything in your post and attempted to supplant a different definition than what was plainly there. You clearly stated that jadennis had debunked everything that I've thrown at him "on this thread." Maybe you meant the forum in general, but you specifically referred to this thread only. Don't attempt to scold me for playing semantics games when it was your own misstatement.
Lets put it another way - every time you guys have clashed, he's beaten your ass. That better? You miss the main point most of the time and veer off on a tangent ==> i.e.- the demographic argument last week. JA (as did I) said it was the "difference".
Both he and you missed
my point. I began the conversation regarding the youth vote on that thread, and Tarheel followed up with his input. Tarheel's initial post was a direct contradiction of my own statement's when he claimed that the youth was not outvoted in the 2008 election. I showed that this was untrue, as there were more votes from other generations than from the youth. It was then you, in response to our debate, who stated that the youth elected "these idiots in DC." This implied, and your subsequent posts explicitly affirmed, that you viewed the youth as
the reason as to why Obama won. You even went as far as to make incorrect statements, such as: "The only difference in this election from the last is the increase of voters between 18-29." You completely ignored my explanation of how other generations also had a change in voting pattern which resulted in more votes for Obama; the youth's change in voting patterns was not the
only difference.
You can't state that the youth was the one and only difference because of their change in voting patterns when other age groups also experienced a change in voting patterns that favored Obama. You especially can't exclaim that this change amongst the youth was
the reason for a Democrat's victory when Obama would have won even if the youth voted as they did in 2004 (jadennis's point, not mine). Jadennis picked up on this at the later stages of our discussion, because he then changed his language to include adjectives that were not mentioned in his previous posts. He was no longer stating that it was
the difference, but rather the
biggest,
most drastic, and
larger of the differences. That is more accurate, and I acknowledged as much.
Oh, and let's not forget that in that thread, jadennis also admitted that he was not arguing against my statements, and that my statements were true:
By the way, I'm not arguing against your points, they are all valid in the sense that you're making them. And while what you're saying is (still) true, you still seem to not be grasping the point. Well, you kind of are grasping it, but not realizing it maybe...
And:
I think you (Vandy Vol) and Tarheel are both right in your assessments, it's just a matter of what is being focused on.
If you really felt the irresistible desire to inform me of exactly how bad my ass is getting beaten by other people on an internet forum, then you could have at least picked out someone who doesn't consistently agree with me.
And as for the TIME article - ummm shyeaah - what do you expect TIME magazine to write about their messiah?
The same thing that I expect Republicans to speak about their messiah. You know, things concerning him being the best orator ever and never screwing up a speech or lying to the American public. Good thing Reagan never misspoke and that the Iran-Contra affair was fictitious...oh wait...
135 Replies
25306 Views