Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gatormonk, Nov 5, 2013.
Considering I threw in "if" as a qualifier, I think is pretty apparent that the answer is no.
"through"? or threw?
You only qualified the condition of her making claims .... not the following:
"then she was always suited for zealotry of some sort, be it religious or secular in nature."
I'm just asking you you are absolutely certain in the accuracy your consequence in this material condition?
And if you are absolutely certain in the consequence .... what is the basis of this certainty, factual knowledge?
First, I have suspended judgment in lieu of facts ('if"), and second, being "suited" for something tempermentally does not necessarily make you something. Any other quibles?
What is the intention of this post by the OP?
LOL, nice try ..... but your problem and failure was the absolute "she was always suited". I'm just trying to secure from you why Powers "was" (typically used by most to denote a factual absolute - eg Bill Clinton was PotUS) "always" ""suited for", qualified for or predisposed to "zealotry". It was your unqualified assertion ..... she "was" and there must be some basis for that.
Or, are you now saying that she was not "suited" for such .... or that she is not now suited for such? Or .... that all is dependent upon what your definition of "was" was ... or is .. or maybe likely would have been at the time but may now be different?
Her politics on Fox News have been, in the past, pretty leftist.
Your excessive belaboring of my statement in search of some sort of "gotcha" suggests to me you are well-suited to be a TV lawyer. Now, that doesnt mean you are a TV lawyer.
Well ...... setting aside your likely intentional mischaracterization of the purpose of my query .... in spite of (my expectation that) you may want others to think you possess an accurate understanding of my intent, I have cause to believe that you are quite likely well suited, based upon experience, to know what it takes to be a "TV lawyer".
So again .... why "was" Powers inclined to be a zealot???? And is she still so inclined?
Maybe you should reread my statement then, because the answer to your questions should be apparent. If it isnt, then I can't do much else to help you.
So, to clarify .... you have no answer. You have no basis for your unqualified assertion ..... Unless your defintion of "was" may have changed subsequent to it's possible initial abuse.
Yes, I do have no basis, which is why I said "if" she is engaging in certain behavior then she was .... Why this wasnt immediately obvious to you and why you decided to take it outside of the context of a reply to another posters statement that I was responding to, I have no idea.