**** Elections thread *****

[BananaStand]

Nixon won, still a loser.

Seems like you're unclear on the definition of loser. If you wanna call Nixon dishonest, crooked, or any of several other derogatory but apt terms, go ahead. But that doesn't change the fact that he emerged victorious in contests of politics.

Nope, it's an opinion. Though it's probably as close to the truth as many of your facts.

No sir, the definitions of words are not matters of opinion. When there are contests, the victors are called "winners", the defeated are called "losers". SURELY you don't expect me to determine the difference between when you're being bombastic, and when you should be taken literally.

I'm sure posting things on poker forums is a much better way to support your president than organising a mass rally.

Thought we weren't playing that ad hominem game?

[Poopadoop]

Seems like you're unclear on the definition of loser. If you wanna call Nixon dishonest, crooked, or any of several other derogatory but apt terms, go ahead. But that doesn't change the fact that he emerged victorious in contests of politics.

No sir, the definitions of words are not matters of opinion. When there are contests, the victors are called "winners", the defeated are called "losers". SURELY you don't expect me to determine the difference between when you're being bombastic, and when you should be taken literally.

No sir, you don't get to decide the frame of reference for how I use a word. Nixon can well be considered a loser in the larger frame of reference, having been impeached and tossed out of office in disgrace.

You can think he's a winner if you want because he won the election. But that's your choice to use that narrow frame of reference. Just like it's mine to use a broader frame which includes what he did once elected.


Thought we weren't playing that ad hominem game?[/QUOTE]

It's not ad hominen; it speaks perfectly to your argument that the people out protesting in the streets are wasting their time.