> I guess it might seem that way if you didn't > know what the hell you were talking about.
You are correct that I didn't follow the link and was responding to the quote. With a quick search I came up with an example of Gibson challenging his credentials. But I'll take your word that there is an interview where he does not. That is one of the big differences between Palin and Obama, we have many interviews of Obama to choose from to make any point in comparison. So I concede your point and take back the Non Sequitur accusation. But the bigger issue of Gibson's questioning of Obama is still inaccurate spin. It is only true if you look at one interview, which does not tell the whole story that is on the record. It is misleading and the link I provided balances it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > He constantly questioned > > > > > her ability to lead but never questioned Obamaâs > > > > > ability to lead, > > > > > > > > I didn't notice Obama in the room for the interview, was he > > > > edited out? > > > > > > Disingenuous. The post Willytex quoted was > > > comparing Gibson's interview of Palin with his > > > June 4 interview of Obama. > > > > I don't share your confidence that you know exactly what Richard > > meant. > > It isn't what "Richard" meant, it's what the > blogger he quoted meant, which is a fact, if you > go read the post he cited (you obviously didn't > bother; you had it all figured out, right?). > > > I was covering both bases. > > > > > In the later interview you cite, Gibson's > > > tougher on Obama, but still, to my mind, less > > > confrontational, less disapproving. > > > > The point was that Gibson did challenge Obama's credentials. To > > refresh your memory of the point: > > > > Richard making a false statement: > > <¦He constantly questionedher ability to lead but never questioned > > Obamaâsability to lead> > > > > That is false as I pointed out. > > No, it's absolutely accurate. Allow me to refresh > your memory of *my* point, which is that the > blogger Richard quoted (it wasn't Richard's > statement, you see) was referring to the June 4 > interview Gibson held with Obama. > > > Your points are all Non Sequiturs. > > I guess it might seem that way if you didn't > know what the hell you were talking about. >
